Re: VC and bzr.

[Óscar Fuentes]

Andreas Schwab <address@hidden> writes:

> Óscar Fuentes <address@hidden> writes:
>
>> We are talking about `push' here. `bzr push' works only if a
>> fast-forward is possible. Same for `bzr pull'. From my reading of the
>> man pages, git doesn't merge on `push' either.
>
> So it works exactly like git.  You commit/merge locally and push when
> ready.  That's one of the basic points of a DCVS.

I'm trying to convey this to you, but failing miserably at it:

* Merge point
  * Feature 1
  * Feature 2
  * Feature 3
* Previous stuff

Following your advice, that's how the history would look on bzr. People
using `log' without extra switches, or reading the emacs-diffs ml, will
see just

* Merge point
* Previous stuff

Now you would argue that those extra switches should be added via
aliases or wathever to `log' so they are always on, but then you will
face another problem with bzr: it is very difficult to rewrite history
(no good rebasing facilities, etc) so it is hard to rewrite your feature
branch into a nice series of commits for they looking good after
integrated upstream. Hence, people merge their feature branches as they
were created and this implies that the stuff shown by `bzr log -n0' is
not all that interesting.

That means that `bzr log -n0' would end as a mess of interesting and
trivial stuff, but `bzr log' would hide key developments.