From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Stephen J. Turnbull" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Locks on the Bzr repository Date: Sun, 22 Aug 2010 04:10:42 +0900 Message-ID: <87tymn7pe5.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> References: <4C6D56DB.7040703@swipnet.se> <4C6D8EC5.7040901@swipnet.se> <4C6E1F0A.7070506@swipnet.se> <837hjlr78p.fsf@gnu.org> <87zkwhtws5.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <83tymppj62.fsf@gnu.org> <871v9t8klf.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <83lj81pazq.fsf@gnu.org> <83aaogpcbu.fsf@gnu.org> <19567.50977.609000.549262@gargle.gargle.HOWL> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1282418046 18829 80.91.229.12 (21 Aug 2010 19:14:06 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2010 19:14:06 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Eli Zaretskii , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Uday S Reddy Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Aug 21 21:14:00 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 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OmtVw-0007Qh-3a for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 21 Aug 2010 21:14:00 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:33173 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OmtVv-0006r8-6l for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 21 Aug 2010 15:13:59 -0400 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=59346 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OmtVp-0006r0-6E for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 21 Aug 2010 15:13:54 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OmtVo-000127-9U for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 21 Aug 2010 15:13:53 -0400 Original-Received: from imss12.cc.tsukuba.ac.jp ([130.158.254.161]:44602) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OmtVm-00011V-NE; Sat, 21 Aug 2010 15:13:51 -0400 Original-Received: from imss12.cc.tsukuba.ac.jp (imss12.cc.tsukuba.ac.jp [127.0.0.1]) by postfix.imss70 (Postfix) with ESMTP id 00C43F4003; Sun, 22 Aug 2010 04:13:48 +0900 (JST) Original-Received: from mgmt2.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp (unknown [130.158.97.224]) by imss12.cc.tsukuba.ac.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id E3F91F4002; Sun, 22 Aug 2010 04:13:47 +0900 (JST) Original-Received: from uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp (uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp [130.158.99.156]) by mgmt2.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id DEB3E9701B4; Sun, 22 Aug 2010 04:13:47 +0900 (JST) Original-Received: by uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 6F0301A2C38; Sun, 22 Aug 2010 04:10:42 +0900 (JST) In-Reply-To: <19567.50977.609000.549262@gargle.gargle.HOWL> X-Mailer: VM undefined under 21.5 (beta29) "garbanzo" ed3b274cc037 XEmacs Lucid (x86_64-unknown-linux) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6, seldom 2.4 (older, 4) 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:128989 Archived-At: Uday S Reddy writes: > Pull works before you commit. It is the same as update, just a > difference in terminology. Unfortunately, that's apparently not so. Not only is there a gross difference (update will do a merge of incommitted work in the workspace with the new changes from upstream, pull never merges), but there are subtle differences: pull involves communication between branches, and updates the workspace as a side effect, while update involves communication between a branch and a workspace (and as a side effect, updates the branch from its master if bound). > Ok, for the record, I don't mean you by saying "you". I mean the > emacs-developer team in general. It seems to me that the closeness > to the previous workflow using CVS was perhaps the overriding > criterion for the authors of the recommended workflow. The > technical merits and demerits were probably not at the top of the > scale. Simplicity was important. The option of suggesting a full-bore distributed workflow was discarded early. However, the suggested workflow obviously is quite different from CVS. A CVS-like workflow is easy to achieve simply by using a lightweight checkout.