Re: GNU Emacs is on Bazaar now.

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

Óscar Fuentes writes:

 > No, because you are committing to upstream, not pushing, i.e. every
 > commit just adds one history item to upstream on top of the previous,
 > without attached or "hidden" revisions, which is perfectly fine for
 > simple changes.

Except in the case of a conflict.  Can you confirm that works smoothly
with the proposed "bzr update" workflow?

 > The last example has one redundant (although hidden by default) log
 > entry, requires more commands and suffers from the "double commit"
 > nuisance that Kenichi Handa mentioned at the beginning of this thread.

This can be easily automated, though.

And what happens if he actually uses a feature branch?  Ken'ichi works
on very invasive stuff (Mule, which has its fingers in all the
lowlevel buffer stuff and redisplay), and is likely to appreciate the
isolation that feature branches provide, once he's used them.  I think
there's a lot of room for icky things[tm] to happen if the bzr-update-
and-work-on-trunk discipline is mixed with the push-through-a-dedicated-
trunk-mirror-branch discipline.