[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Strange response after merge from upstream
From: |
Óscar Fuentes |
Subject: |
Re: Strange response after merge from upstream |
Date: |
Wed, 02 Dec 2009 08:05:11 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1.50 (gnu/linux) |
"Stephen J. Turnbull" <address@hidden> writes:
> Eli Zaretskii writes:
>
> > How is "merge --pull" different from merge followed by commit?
> > would it avoid the "1 extra revision" in the output of "missing"?
>
> Maybe.
>
> - "bzr merge" always merges, and you must commit.
Correct.
> - "bzr pull" does a trivial merge and commit if your local branch's
> tip revision is an ancestor of the remote revision, otherwise it
> aborts without changing anything. (A successful pull is also called
> a "fast forward".)
`pull' never merges because there is nothing that can cause
conflicts. The scenario where `pull' works is this:
my_mirror: A B C D
upstream : A B C D E F
After pull:
my_mirror: A B C D E F
upstream : A B C D E F
It is impossible to get a conflict here. It just adds the revisions to
the DAG. However, if you have something like this:
my_branch: A B C D X
upstream : A B C D E F
conflicts may arise and you must merge to obtain
my_branch: A-B-C-D-X------M
\--E-F-/
upstream : A B C D E F
M is the commit you make after the merge, aka the "merge point".
Even if the branches didn't diverged, a `merge' creates a different
graph than a `pull'. This is the state before the operations:
upstream : A B C D E F
my_pull : A B C D
my_merge : A B C D
This is after:
upstream : A B C D E F
my_pull : A B C D E F
my_merge : A-B-C-D-X------M
\--E-F-/
This is most obvious on the output of `bzr log'.
"fast forward" is git lingo.
[snip]
--
Óscar
- Re: Strange response after merge from upstream, (continued)
- Re: Strange response after merge from upstream, Alexander Belchenko, 2009/12/01
- Re: Strange response after merge from upstream, Eli Zaretskii, 2009/12/01
- Re: Strange response after merge from upstream, Óscar Fuentes, 2009/12/01
- Re: Strange response after merge from upstream, Eli Zaretskii, 2009/12/02
- Re: Strange response after merge from upstream, Óscar Fuentes, 2009/12/02
- Re: Strange response after merge from upstream, Eli Zaretskii, 2009/12/02
- Re: Strange response after merge from upstream, Stefan Monnier, 2009/12/02
- Re: Strange response after merge from upstream, Eli Zaretskii, 2009/12/02
- Re: Strange response after merge from upstream, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2009/12/02
- Re: Strange response after merge from upstream,
Óscar Fuentes <=
- Re: Strange response after merge from upstream, Stefan Monnier, 2009/12/02
- Re: Strange response after merge from upstream, Óscar Fuentes, 2009/12/02
- Re: Strange response after merge from upstream, Stefan Monnier, 2009/12/02
- Re: Strange response after merge from upstream, Alexander Belchenko, 2009/12/02