Re: merge conlict?

["Óscar Fuentes" <ofv@wanadoo.es>]

Teemu Likonen <tlikonen@iki.fi> writes:

> On 2010-01-25 12:27 (+0100), Óscar Fuentes wrote:
>
>> OTOH, Mark looks like more
>>
>> somebranch $ bzr merge URL_TO_UPSTREAM_TRUNK
>> somebranch $ bzr commit
>> somebranch $ bzr push URL_TO_UPSTREAM_TRUNK
>>
>> which causes havoc.
>
> Let's visualize:

I was going to do that. Thanks for saving me the ASCII art. I abhor
doing any kind of visual art :-)

You can view the branch diagram with `bzr qlog'. You need the qbzr
plugin, which is included on most bzr installers and distro
repositories.

[snip]

> Well, technically nothing bad has happened.

Unless you take the "technically" part as "no code was lost", I beg to
differ. A simple `bzr log' will show that the commits of the last few
days are gone from the listing. You need to add the `-n2' parameter to
see them as merged history under Mark's commit. Ideally, you shouldn't
need to look at the merged history except for "serious" branches. Do a
`bzr log -n2' and see how much uninteresting stuff you get. So now part
of the important stuff was moved to the same level as the uninteresting
stuff.

Oh, and apart from this problem and producing a huge diff, it breaks
bisection.

> It's a social question if it's important to always have the trunk the
> first parent.

As you said on a previous message, for bzr it is important to
differentiate the left-most part of the history. The writers of the
BzrForEmacsDevs wiki page were very careful about this point when they
wrote the workflow description.