Re: merge conlict?

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

David Reitter writes:

 > http://wiki.bazaar.canonical.com/Rebase
 > Would this be useful?

To some people.  Others just want to commit, merge, and forget.

 > If the commits on the private branch aren't clean,

For most people, they probably are.  Based on the workflows people
have described as desirable and historical, private branches are
likely to be generally short, and induced by lack of physical contact
with the upstream rather a desire to isolate the branch.  That is,
they had every intent of making a high-quality commit directly to
trunk, but the network failed or something.

Other people will be used to working with git or Mercurial, and likely
will have more significant private branches of uncertain quality.

 > Does bzr generally make the merged history available?  Or would the  
 > branch need to be pushed?

I'm not sure what you're asking.  When you push or pull from one
pbranch to another, bzr transfers all commits reachable from the merge
commit to the target branch.

 > (Git pushes all reachable revisions, I think, which is why I'm  
 > assuming bzr does the same, but maybe I'm wrong.)

Your phrasing is ambiguous.  The only git command that defaults to
transferring *all* reachable revisions is clone.  bzr has no analog to
that yet, but it is planned and a fair amount of work has been done
AIUI.

git push will push all revisions reachable from the refs named on the
command line, defaulting to those reachable from HEAD.  This is the
same as bzr.

git push can be configured to default to pushing a set of refs and all
commits reachable from them.  AFAIK bzr has no analog, nor is one planned.