[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: merge conlict?

From: Óscar Fuentes
Subject: Re: merge conlict?
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2010 16:57:31 +0100
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1.91 (gnu/linux)

Andreas Schwab <address@hidden> writes:

> Óscar Fuentes <address@hidden> writes:
>> There is no concept of "big merge" on bzr. (nor on git, AFAIK)
> If you merge a long development branch, then that's a big merge.

You know, I know, but how bzr knows?

>> So either you include the merged revisions and cope with unstable
>> intermediate points or you ignore them, locate the merge point where
>> the problem was introduced on mainline, and then proceed to bisect the
>> branch that originated that merge point.
> That's exactly what bisect does, automagically.  If you are careful with
> your history, then this just works.

"being careful with you history" means not committing things to local
branches that you wouldn't commit directly to trunk? I think such policy
would be counterproductive, but we already discussed this point on the

reply via email to

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