Re: vc-update for bzr etc.

[Stefan Monnier]

>> IMHO there's a benefit from implementing vc-pull/push operations.
>> Then vc-update can use vc-pull after maybe asking a few questions.
>> The pull/push terminology is what people are currently used to, so
>> it's easier for end users.
> It makes more sense to make vc-update do a pull operation for DVCS's,
> and make vc-pull an alias for vc-update if necessary, instead of making
> vc-pull a separate new VC operation and leaving vc-update an undefined
> operation for those systems.

Yes, vc-pull and vc-update should be basically the same command.
The terminology in new backend operations should be `pull', I think.

> So the full functionality for Bzr should be something like this:
>  - If it's a bound branch, do bzr update.
>  - Otherwise, if there is a default pull location, prompt for a location
>    and do "bzr merge --pull".
>  - Otherwise, just do "bzr merge --pull" to use the default location.
> Does this sound right?

If it's not bound, it should just use "bzr pull" without prompting
the user, IMO.


        Stefan