[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: base

From: Eli Zaretskii
Subject: Re: base
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 20:08:37 +0300

> From: "Stephen J. Turnbull" <address@hidden>
> Cc: Miles Bader <address@hidden>,
>     address@hidden
> Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 20:01:02 +0900
> Eli Zaretskii writes:
>  > You are pushing a simple request ad absurdum.  I wasn't asking for
>  > an exhaustive list of _all_possible_ workflows, only for a few
>  > representative ones.  And please don't tell me that's impossible,
>  > or even hard, because today I can easily do that for Bazaar.
> No, you can provide some representative workflows that are enough for
> you.

Actually, I meant some representative workflows that should cover the
common use-cases.

> That's far from providing representative workflows that would be
> enough to convince anyone who has actually used git that bzr is a
> half-adequate replacement.

Indeed, I see no reason to ask for workflows that convince not to use
bzr in a project that uses bzr.

> For example, suppose I ask, "How do I efficiently switch from one
> branch to another in the same directory, like I do in git?"

  bzr switch THE_OTHER_BRANCH

(I have no idea whether this is "like you do in git".)

> Or "how do I rebase branch A from the common ancestor with branch B to
> the grandparent of the head of branch C, which branched from trunk
> before B did?"

  cd A && bzr rebase --onto=revno:-3 ../C

> And for a gold star, tell me whether it matters when B branched from
> trunk.

I don't see why it should.  Although I'm probably missing something in
your description, because I don't understand what is B doing in this
story.  Both A and B branched from the trunk at the same point, right?

>  > For complex and unconventional workflows, it _might_ be necessary
>  > to use the history DAG to explain them, but for the common
>  > workflows even that should not be necessary.
> OK, if it's not necessary, do it.  Specifically, explain why pushing
> directly from a working branch to the upstream repository "just like
> a CVS commit" (which has got to be as simple and conventional as it
> gets, right?) is a bad idea in Bazaar.  No references to the DAG are
> allowed, because they're unnecessary, right?

Right.  But there's nothing for me to explain here, because it is
already explained on the wiki: "it can cause history to be displayed
in a strange way in the upstream master, any mirrors or branches of
it, and your own branch later."  And the mail referenced from there
explains more: the revisions from the branch will appear as part of
mainline, and mainline will appear as if it were a branch.

Note that the acronym DAG is not used anywhere.

reply via email to

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