[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Strange response after merge from upstream

From: Eli Zaretskii
Subject: Re: Strange response after merge from upstream
Date: Wed, 02 Dec 2009 05:53:53 -0500

> From: =?utf-8?Q?=C3=93scar_Fuentes?= <address@hidden>
> Cc: Óscar_Fuentes <address@hidden>,  address@hidden
> Date: Wed, 02 Dec 2009 07:26:06 +0100
> > Is there a way of ``resyncing'' the branch with the trunk, so that
> > "bzr missing" shows no missing/extra revisions?
> Omitting the "27 missing revisions" and going back to the scenario you
> described on your original post, a solution for this is to push that
> extra revision into trunk. It is not the right solution, though, if your
> `trunk' branch is intended to be a mirror of upstream's `trunk'. Other
> solution is to uncommit, if you didn't commited more stuff to
> quickfixes/ :
> bzr uncommit
> bzr revert

Thanks, these two followed by "bzr merge --pull" seem to have solved
the issue.  I will use "merge --pull" from now on, as long as no
development goes on on quickfixes/, and see if it stays in sync.

> It depends. Sometimes the right thing is to pull, sometimes you want to
> merge. For your local mirror of upstream's trunk, you always want to
> pull. For the rest of the branches, if you already have local commits,
> `merge' is your only option. Once you send the local commits upstream,
> you can pull again.

Yes, I understand that much.  I was just surprised to see what sounded
like a branch that only ever merged from the trunk and had no changes
whatsoever would appear as having some changes wrt that trunk.

reply via email to

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