Re: bzr workflow

[Jan Djärv]

Óscar Fuentes skrev:
> Jan Djärv <address@hidden> writes:
>
> > Óscar Fuentes skrev:
> >
> > > There is something that I disagree with BzrForEmacsDevs: a quickfix that
> > > requires more than one commit or that spans so long in time to warrant a
> > > merge from upstream does not qualify as a quickfix for me.
> > This is too simple.  There have been many times in the CVS days when I
> > tried to commit a change only to find out there was a conflict
> > (usually ChangeLog). So I always merge from upstream before committing
> > to upstream.
>
> That's what `bzr up' does on a bound branch or checkout.

Yes, but that is not in the quickfix branch.  You must resolve and test 
conflicts in the qucik fix branch.  This can't be done in the trunk branch (as 
per the Wiki) as we don't even compile there.  You could just resolve 
conflicts textually, but not testing it before comitting upstream is noting I 
would do.

> > What starts out as a (presumed) quickfix often turns in to a
> > week/month long fix.  To assume that one can always beforehand descide
> > if one is about to do a quickfix or not is also too simple minded.
>
> You can easily turn your quickfixes/ branch into something else:
>
> cd quickfixes/
> bzr unbind   # Make this a regular branch
> cd ..
> mv quickfixes/ complex-fix-for-bug342
> bzr branch trunk/ quickfixes  # Recreate quickfixes/ branch
> cd quickfixes/
> bzr bind URL_TO_UPSTREAM/trunk

I wouldn't call that easy, but thanks for the info.
This is not how the Wiki says the quick fix branch should be created though, 
the last bind isn't there.

> There are methods for translating the uncommitted changes from one
> branch to another too, if you prefer to not having to recreate the
> quickfixes/ branch:
>
> bzr branch trunk/ complex-fix-for-bug342
> cd complex-fix-for-bug342
> bzr merge --uncommitted ../quickfixes
> cd ../quickfixes
> bzr revert

It doesn't matter which way you do it, you still have to do make bootstrap 
again, and that is where time goes.

> > Bzr feels very strange and uncomfortable.  It is workable, but not
> > smooth or elegant, just kind of icky.
>
> IMO, for the case we are talking about, it works nicely.

On some definition of "nicely", sure.

        Jan D.