From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Karl Fogel Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Strange message from "bzr pull" Date: Thu, 31 Dec 2009 14:36:59 -0500 Message-ID: <873a2rc4v8.fsf@red-bean.com> References: <877hs5ogv8.fsf@red-bean.com> <83my11ejmr.fsf@gnu.org> <87aax1mxh6.fsf@red-bean.com> <83hbr9eha3.fsf@gnu.org> <87ws05lhqg.fsf@red-bean.com> <83d41xee5d.fsf@gnu.org> Reply-To: Karl Fogel NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1262288244 13256 80.91.229.12 (31 Dec 2009 19:37:24 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 31 Dec 2009 19:37:24 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Juanma Barranquero , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Dec 31 20:37:17 2009 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1NQQpg-0003VN-Ie for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 31 Dec 2009 20:37:16 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:36175 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1NQQpg-0002Tx-SH for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 31 Dec 2009 14:37:17 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1NQQpb-0002TL-RA for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 31 Dec 2009 14:37:11 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1NQQpV-0002RV-FA for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 31 Dec 2009 14:37:09 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=45291 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1NQQpV-0002RK-4t for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 31 Dec 2009 14:37:05 -0500 Original-Received: from sanpietro.red-bean.com ([66.146.206.141]:43610) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1NQQpS-0002NE-1v; Thu, 31 Dec 2009 14:37:02 -0500 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:58550 helo=kfogel-work ident=kfogel) by sanpietro.red-bean.com with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1NQQpQ-0005Yb-G5; Thu, 31 Dec 2009 13:37:00 -0600 In-Reply-To: (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Wed, 30 Dec 2009 10:05:53 -0500") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1.91 (gnu/linux) X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:119166 Archived-At: Eli Zaretskii writes: >> From: Juanma Barranquero >> Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2009 13:19:43 +0100 >> Cc: kfogel@red-bean.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org >> >> On Wed, Dec 30, 2009 at 08:02, Eli Zaretskii wrote: >> >> > If so, perhaps it's better to say on the wiki that >> > "bzr update" be always used in trunk/, because it will always work, no >> > matter if the mirror diverged or not? >> >> If you look at the archives of the Bazaar list, there's a thread "bzr >> pull vs. bzr update" starting on Dec 16 where the issue is discussed >> (specifically with respect to Emacs and the BzrForEmacsDevs document). > >Thanks for the pointer. > >After reading that, I think that the Emacswiki should recommend "bzr up", >not "bzr pull". The main reason is that the Bazaar docs say one should >use `update' in this configuration. Bazaar docs are far from ideal, >but they are very clear on this issue. It doesn't make sense, IMO, to >confuse newcomers to Bazaar by going against the user manual, especially >if we want to save them from extra confusion. > >Besides, with the trunk not treeless anymore, the chances that one-off >changes will be done there just became higher, and with them the risk >of having "bzr pull" error out ==> more confusion, and IMO for no good >reason. (For reference, the thread we're talking about begins at [1]. Personally, I find it more easily navigable at Gmane [2].) The reason I went with 'pull' in the doc was because I thought we'd want an error if there were local commits. However, it's looking like some developers will be using trunk for small one-off changes, and as Juanma points out later in the thread [3], since trunk is a bound branch, a developer would have to use 'commit --local' to have any local commits there at all... which is so unlikely that if it happens, the person clearly did it on purpose and knows what they're doing. So between that and what you say above, it makes sense to me too to switch to recommending 'update' in the doc. I've done so. Thanks for synthesizing the arguments, Eli and Juanma. -K [1] https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/bazaar/2009q4/065443.html [2] http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.bazaar-ng.general/64885/focus=64911 [3] http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.bazaar-ng.general/64885/focus=64911