Re: Strange response after merge from upstream

[Alexander Belchenko <bialix@ukr.net>]

Óscar Fuentes пишет:
> "Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen@xemacs.org> writes:
> 
>> Eli Zaretskii writes:
>>
>>  > How is "merge --pull" different from merge followed by commit? 
>>  > would it avoid the "1 extra revision" in the output of "missing"?
>>
>> Maybe.
>>
>> - "bzr merge" always merges, and you must commit.
> 
> Correct.
> 
>> - "bzr pull" does a trivial merge and commit if your local branch's
>>   tip revision is an ancestor of the remote revision, otherwise it
>>   aborts without changing anything.  (A successful pull is also called
>>   a "fast forward".)
> 
> `pull' never merges because there is nothing that can cause
> conflicts.

It's not quite true. If you have uncommitted yet changes in your branch, and you do pull from other
branch, then pull will merge your uncommitted changes with pulled changes, and thus could create
conflict. Something like running `cvs update` when you have some changes in the tree.