From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Sven Joachim Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Confusing "bzr log" as result of merges Date: Sat, 21 May 2011 11:01:13 +0200 Message-ID: <8762p4mnqe.fsf@turtle.gmx.de> References: <83ipt4fqyy.fsf@gnu.org> <83fwo8fnnl.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1305968491 29469 80.91.229.12 (21 May 2011 09:01:31 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 21 May 2011 09:01:31 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Andreas Schwab , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat May 21 11:01:23 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([140.186.70.17]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1QNi3m-0005cW-Ul for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 21 May 2011 11:01:23 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:44734 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QNi3m-0001TK-8V for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 21 May 2011 05:01:22 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:55024) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QNi3j-0001TE-9h for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 21 May 2011 05:01:20 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QNi3i-00068o-Ba for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 21 May 2011 05:01:19 -0400 Original-Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net ([213.165.64.23]:51647) by eggs.gnu.org with smtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QNi3h-00068Q-Ur for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 21 May 2011 05:01:18 -0400 Original-Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 21 May 2011 09:01:14 -0000 Original-Received: from p4FF8927E.dip.t-dialin.net (EHLO turtle.gmx.de) [79.248.146.126] by mail.gmx.net (mp047) with SMTP; 21 May 2011 11:01:14 +0200 X-Authenticated: #28250155 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1/ZPKtygUrZIANjMp7iYuRcPIN6amx4+BOjKjumIl PizU44o7DFz3Ki Original-Received: by turtle.gmx.de (Postfix, from userid 1000) id D64AC3F5F4; Sat, 21 May 2011 11:01:13 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: <83fwo8fnnl.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Sat, 21 May 2011 11:44:46 +0300") User-Agent: Gnus/5.110017 (No Gnus v0.17) Emacs/23.3.50 (gnu/linux) X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-Received-From: 213.165.64.23 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:139573 Archived-At: On 2011-05-21 10:44 +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote: >> From: Andreas Schwab >> Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org >> Date: Sat, 21 May 2011 10:36:57 +0200 >> >> Eli Zaretskii writes: >> >> > And why was 99634.2.937 merged to the trunk, even though the log >> > message clearly says it's a backport? If we avoid merging such >> > backported revisions, will this problem go away? >> >> A merge always includes all parent revisions. There is no way to "avoid >> merging a backported revision". > > Maybe with git. With bzr, "merge" accepts a switch that can specify > revisions to merge. The downside of that is that bzr then does not track what revisions have already been merged. At least, that's what http://wiki.bazaar.canonical.com/MergeTracking says about that topic. Cheers, Sven