Recipes vs. Looms vs. pipelines

[Vincent Ladeuil]

>>>>> "jam" == John Arbash Meinel <john at arbash-meinel.com> writes:

    jam> Vincent Ladeuil wrote:
    >>>>>>> "barry" == Barry Warsaw <barry at canonical.com> writes:
    >> 
    >> <snip/>
    >> 
    barry> loom                            non-loom
    barry> ----                            --------
    barry> bzr down-thread rocketfuel      bzr merge ../devel
    barry> bzr pull                        bzr commit -m'Merge rocketfuel'
    barry> bzr up-thread --auto
    >> 
    >> Nice, I never put words on that but I share the feeling. In my
    >> mental model the "loom way" is: let's restart what I'm doing
    >> based on today's trunk, whereas the "non-loom" way is: let's see
    >> what happen if I bring trunk into my branch.
    >> 
    >> Or said otherwise: one inject the new trunk from the bottom when
    >> the other inject it from the top.
    >> 
    >> Of course the resulting tree is the same, but since they produce
    >> different histories, the resulting branches tend to behave a bit
    >> differently too when you start landing part of your work on the
    >> trunk and that you re-inject the trunk
    >> 
    >> Vincent
    >> 

    jam> Actually, those produce the exact same history.

No.

    jam> What you are describing "verbally" sounds a lot more
    jam> like the rebase workflow. Where you bring in trunk at
    jam> the 'bottom' of your changes and put them all on top.

Yes, except for the history-lost part of rebase.

    jam> I guess if you have more than 1 feature thread the
    jam> history might be different.

No. A base thread for trunk were I can pull and feature thread on
top is enough.

In one case I *pull* trunk in the base thread while in the other
I *merge* trunk in the top thread. That's enough to build
different histories.

        Vincent