Re: log format for vc-bzr

[Juanma Barranquero]

On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 13:52, Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden> wrote:

> You ran "bzr status" in the trunk, that's why.  Sorry.

Well, yes. After

   cd trunk
   bzr merge ../my-branch

it is "bzr status" in trunk which will show that there are pending merges.

(BTW, I just saw that I was able to mistype the name of
"--forget-merges" as "--pending-changes" and "--pending-merges" not
once, but several times. Ugh, sorry for adding to the confusion.)

> But isn't the effect on the resulting revision DAG very similar?

Bazaar's rebase doesn't "destroy" commits. If you have four, and
rebase, you still have four. If you then merge that branch back into
trunk, it will be one commit, with a "microbranch" showing four
commits. merge plus "revert --forget-merges" would allow you to change
these commits to your heart's content. git's rebase -i is more like
it, because you can rebase and merge commits (and, with a little more
effort, split them).

> Yes, I see that now, but if ttn called that ``personal junk'', then I
> cannot disagree more.  That's the history of my work; I don't see how
> someone could object to having it in the public repository.  Without
> it, some changes, such as inadvertent merge mistakes, can never be
> investigated and will remain a mystery forever.
>
> I do understand that "revert --forget-merges" is one way of hiding
> some of my changes from the public eye.  But I don't see any
> compelling use-case for that, except some marginal situations.

I think it depends on your style of development; certainly, even if
they are hidden into "log -n0" land, commits of the style "Go to
lunch", "Let's call it a day" and "OK, that's not too broken" do not
really add much value. As for other changes, some people like pushing
a clean history, some prefer to keep all the false starts and new
ideas and the like.

    Juanma