[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Re: Re: Future of GNU Arch, bazaar and bazaar-n

From: John A Meinel
Subject: Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Re: Re: Future of GNU Arch, bazaar and bazaar-ng ... ?
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2005 04:25:51 -0500
User-agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.6 (Macintosh/20050716)

martin f krafft wrote:
> also sprach Aldrik KLEBER <address@hidden> [2005.08.22.1455 +0200]:
>>the problem of baz  actually is the documentation, baz need extra effort on
>>this matter. I migrate from tla to baz, and it's true that even with tla
>>background I was a bit disapointed with the documentation. But bazaar itself
>>is good
> Sure it is, for the technologically interested or versed. But not
> for the user who is expected to e.g. maintain webpages therein.
>>>Also, I often end up making a mess of my repository and would like
>>>to be able to commit revisions by cherry-picking changes/hunks.
>>>darcs does this very nicely.
>>tla and baz too,  this is a natural way of working.
> No, you misunderstand me. Imagine I check out patch-10 and make two
> changes to the same file, which are completely unrelated. I would
> like one change to become patch-11, the other patch-12. The only way
> to do this in baz to my knowledge is reverting one of the changes,
> commit, reapply, commit.
> darcs asks you which hunks out of a file you want to commit.

bzr currently has a plugin for "shelf/unshelf" which lets you select the
current hunks as they exist and "put them on a shelf", so that you can
simply re-apply them later. Sort of a fine-grained "tla undo".

Which in my mind, is the better way to do it. Because it works for more
situations, and doesn't complicate the commit.
Because I can do a big change, and realize I need a bugfix, shelve what
I'm working on, apply the bugfix, test it, unshelve by big change, and
keep going.

I think the shelf code makes cherrypicking a single change reasonably
easy by having a "use this answer for all other changes", so that when
you get to the change you want to include/exclude, you don't have to say
yes/no to all the other hunks. (This may be identical to how darcs does
it, I haven't used darcs much).


> I want hunk level, not file level.

If you're not stuck on having it in the commit command, bzr has this
(not in mainline, but in Aaron Bentley's semi-official bzrtools plugin).

By the way, the plugin system in bzr makes it *very* convenient to test
out and implement new commands. Plus sharing them, and keeping them


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

reply via email to

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