From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: =?utf-8?Q?=C3=93scar_Fuentes?= Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: log format for vc-bzr Date: Fri, 08 Jan 2010 18:45:07 +0100 Message-ID: <87ocl4bie4.fsf@telefonica.net> References: <200912081747.nB8HlwPR021836@godzilla.ics.uci.edu> <874oo1w9y1.fsf@telefonica.net> <87tyw1uss6.fsf@telefonica.net> <200912082203.nB8M3FLP023771@godzilla.ics.uci.edu> <87hbs1at4u.fsf@notengoamigos.org> <871vj3sxgy.fsf@telefonica.net> <87ws0vrd46.fsf@telefonica.net> <87hbqxa9ti.fsf@ambire.localdomain> <87k4vtd1uy.fsf@telefonica.net> <83ljg9as4g.fsf@gnu.org> <873a2gkh0n.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <838wc8bxft.fsf@gnu.org> <874omwd7wx.fsf@telefonica.net> <83ocl4a60j.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1262972766 29441 80.91.229.12 (8 Jan 2010 17:46:06 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2010 17:46:06 +0000 (UTC) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Jan 08 18:45:59 2010 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 1NTIuI-0007Y2-MV for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 08 Jan 2010 18:45:54 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:33866 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1NTIuJ-0003m1-3l for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 08 Jan 2010 12:45:55 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1NTIuD-0003lp-P4 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 08 Jan 2010 12:45:49 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1NTIu8-0003kn-L5 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 08 Jan 2010 12:45:49 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=44241 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1NTIu8-0003kk-Ey for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 08 Jan 2010 12:45:44 -0500 Original-Received: from lo.gmane.org ([80.91.229.12]:41279) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1NTIu7-0001L8-Vm for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 08 Jan 2010 12:45:44 -0500 Original-Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.50) id 1NTIu0-0007MS-Nf for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 08 Jan 2010 18:45:36 +0100 Original-Received: from 180.red-83-36-171.dynamicip.rima-tde.net ([83.36.171.180]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 08 Jan 2010 18:45:36 +0100 Original-Received: from ofv by 180.red-83-36-171.dynamicip.rima-tde.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 08 Jan 2010 18:45:36 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Original-Lines: 25 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 180.red-83-36-171.dynamicip.rima-tde.net User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1.90 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:2TcO9BVGTmB6i+SyrYbYARrPVQU= 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:119714 Archived-At: Eli Zaretskii writes: >> > Terrific! So I just did a merge, but it is still considered >> > ``pending''? Who could have thought of a more confusing semantics?? >> >> bzr always requires to commit after a merge. > > Then the docs should have said "pending uncommitted merge results". > > IOW, the fact that there should be a commit after the merge is not the > reason to call the just-performed merge "pending". The results of the > merge are pending commit, but the merge itself is no longer pending, > it was already done. I disagree. The pending is not done until the corresponding revision is created and hence integrated on the history of the branch. That revision is the merge, not the source code changes that `bzr merge' created. This is a about how to interpret certain terms. You are seeing the issue from the POV of a code writer who cares mostly about the state of the working tree. Me from the POV of somebody who is more fluent with the tool (bzr) and see things on terms of history points. -- Óscar