Recipes vs. Looms vs. pipelines

[John Arbash Meinel]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Vincent Ladeuil wrote:
>>>>>> "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
>     >> 

> No.

down-thread , pull, up-thread is the same as "bzr merge"

- --auto will do a commit for you. How is the history different?


> 
>     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
> 

Nope. You still have to merge it into your top thread and commit that.
So the history in the top thread is the same.

John
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Cygwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAksqW+wACgkQJdeBCYSNAAOzfgCgqWTkgef1gU5kR3/qhsoHpTEy
J8MAoLqfzEw5RQFPcm7hc+7UAFJMLBQF
=TXoG
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----