[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: bzr workflow

From: Óscar Fuentes
Subject: Re: bzr workflow
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 09:40:05 +0100
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1.91 (gnu/linux)

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.

> So what you are saying is in fact, there are no quick fixes.
> 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

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

> 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.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]