Re: GNU Emacs is on Bazaar now.

[Óscar Fuentes]

"Stephen J. Turnbull" <address@hidden> writes:

> 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?

That is not different from CVS or Subversion: you update before commit,
you get conflicts, you resolve them, you commit.

>  > 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?

Then he should use the adequate workflow for a feature branch.

[snip]
> 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.

Can you describe some of those icky things?

-- 
Óscar