[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Future of GNU Arch, bazaar and bazaar-ng ... ?

From: Martin Pool
Subject: Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Future of GNU Arch, bazaar and bazaar-ng ... ?
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 01:06:18 -0300

On 8/21/05, Jan Hudec <address@hidden> wrote:

> Thanks for the clarification.
> So it behaves similarly to git and mercurial (and monotone), 

That's correct.

> except mercurial
> (but not git) will not insist on merging immediately.

Yes.  The default behaviour of bzr is meant to be more familiar to
svn/cvs (and for that matter tla) users: when you run the merge
command, it updates your working copy, then you can fix up any text or
semantic conflicts.

When I want to download something but not merge immediately, I
typically pull it into a separate local tree, then merge from there. 
For example I have trees holding work coming in from aaron and john.

It'd be quite possible to change bzr to allow you to have multiple
active branches inside a single directory -- I think someone requested
this  the other day.  (Basically you just need several copies of
.bzr/revision-history.)  This can allow some reduction in disk and
network usage.  This might be useful in the future but for now I'd
rather keep the very simple model of just naming branches by paths.


reply via email to

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