Re: merge conlict?

[Óscar Fuentes]

Andreas Schwab <address@hidden> writes:

> Óscar Fuentes <address@hidden> writes:
>
>> There is no concept of "big merge" on bzr. (nor on git, AFAIK)
>
> If you merge a long development branch, then that's a big merge.

You know, I know, but how bzr knows?

>> So either you include the merged revisions and cope with unstable
>> intermediate points or you ignore them, locate the merge point where
>> the problem was introduced on mainline, and then proceed to bisect the
>> branch that originated that merge point.
>
> That's exactly what bisect does, automagically.  If you are careful with
> your history, then this just works.

"being careful with you history" means not committing things to local
branches that you wouldn't commit directly to trunk? I think such policy
would be counterproductive, but we already discussed this point on the
past.