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: GNU Emacs is on Bazaar now. Date: Tue, 29 Dec 2009 03:16:03 +0100 Message-ID: <87ws06plss.fsf@telefonica.net> References: <87d4206n80.fsf@canonical.com> <87637qhjqu.fsf@red-bean.com> <87fx6urat1.fsf@telefonica.net> <87oclig1qj.fsf@red-bean.com> <87bphir8s4.fsf@telefonica.net> <87zl52o82l.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> 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 1262053226 21205 80.91.229.12 (29 Dec 2009 02:20:26 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 29 Dec 2009 02:20:26 +0000 (UTC) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Dec 29 03:20:19 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 1NPRh4-00006C-Vr for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 29 Dec 2009 03:20:19 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:33757 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1NPRh5-00063X-94 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 28 Dec 2009 21:20:19 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1NPRgz-00063C-O9 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 28 Dec 2009 21:20:13 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1NPRgv-00061s-7D for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 28 Dec 2009 21:20:13 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=58988 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1NPRgv-00061p-20 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 28 Dec 2009 21:20:09 -0500 Original-Received: from lo.gmane.org ([80.91.229.12]:47581) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1NPRgu-0004Cq-N4 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 28 Dec 2009 21:20:09 -0500 Original-Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.50) id 1NPRgr-0008UP-G5 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 29 Dec 2009 03:20:05 +0100 Original-Received: from 174.red-83-45-255.dynamicip.rima-tde.net ([83.45.255.174]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 29 Dec 2009 03:20:05 +0100 Original-Received: from ofv by 174.red-83-45-255.dynamicip.rima-tde.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 29 Dec 2009 03:20:05 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Original-Lines: 34 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 174.red-83-45-255.dynamicip.rima-tde.net User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1.90 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:2VCxcSM0nHEZRBxDAuJtLhdBm6o= 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:118906 Archived-At: "Stephen J. Turnbull" writes: > Óscar Fuentes writes: > > > No, because you are committing to upstream, not pushing, i.e. every > > commit just adds one history item to upstream on top of the previous, > > without attached or "hidden" revisions, which is perfectly fine for > > simple changes. > > Except in the case of a conflict. Can you confirm that works smoothly > with the proposed "bzr update" workflow? That is not different from CVS or Subversion: you update before commit, you get conflicts, you resolve them, you commit. > > The last example has one redundant (although hidden by default) log > > entry, requires more commands and suffers from the "double commit" > > nuisance that Kenichi Handa mentioned at the beginning of this thread. > > This can be easily automated, though. > > And what happens if he actually uses a feature branch? Then he should use the adequate workflow for a feature branch. [snip] > I think there's a lot of room for icky things[tm] to happen if the > bzr-update- and-work-on-trunk discipline is mixed with the > push-through-a-dedicated- trunk-mirror-branch discipline. Can you describe some of those icky things? -- Óscar