From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Merging emacs-23 into trunk Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2010 14:03:05 -0500 Message-ID: References: <837hglf61k.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1289415995 3496 80.91.229.12 (10 Nov 2010 19:06:35 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2010 19:06:35 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Nov 10 20:06:31 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 1PGG05-0001HD-6w for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 10 Nov 2010 20:06:29 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:45789 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PGG04-0002ie-Ep for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 10 Nov 2010 14:06:28 -0500 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=56940 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PGFwr-0008OB-Lq for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 10 Nov 2010 14:03:10 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PGFwq-0004X7-LL for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 10 Nov 2010 14:03:09 -0500 Original-Received: from ironport2-out.teksavvy.com ([206.248.154.183]:19380 helo=ironport2-out.pppoe.ca) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PGFwp-0004WU-MU; Wed, 10 Nov 2010 14:03:07 -0500 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgwKAG572kxMCpqE/2dsb2JhbAChNnlyvliFSgSEWo1e X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.59,179,1288584000"; d="scan'208";a="82133969" Original-Received: from 76-10-154-132.dsl.teksavvy.com (HELO ceviche.home) ([76.10.154.132]) by ironport2-out.pppoe.ca with ESMTP/TLS/ADH-AES256-SHA; 10 Nov 2010 14:03:06 -0500 Original-Received: by ceviche.home (Postfix, from userid 20848) id 025EE660DC; Wed, 10 Nov 2010 14:03:06 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <837hglf61k.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Wed, 10 Nov 2010 19:21:43 +0200") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.50 (gnu/linux) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. 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:132522 Archived-At: >> bzr merge -r A >> bzr merge --force -r A..B >> >> While I do expect the two to behave differently w.r.t conflicts (or in >> the case where A>B, say), I think the fact that the second does not >> register the revisions from A to B in the "pending merges" data seems >> like a bug to me. > You are cherry-picking here; cherry-picking is explicitly not tracked > in the history DAG. Actually, I'm not cherry-picking: Since all changes until A have been merged, merging A..B will end up with all changes until B: I'm not picking some changes and avoiding others. And indeed bzr merge -r A..B will correctly track the history in the case where A has already been merged and committed. > Why is that a problem, in the context of this discussion (merging from > a release branch to the trunk)? Because, in order to cherry-pick, I merge the various parts of the emacs-23 branch differently, so I need to issue various "bzr merge" commands to merge the branch bit by bit. I could work around this limitation by working on a separate temporary branch (where I can commit after each "bzr merge") and then merge that temporary branch into trunk. >> And the fact that >> bzr merge -r A >> bzr merge --force -r B >> applies the A changes twice is another bug. > I think this is again because cherry-picking is not tracked, so bzr > doesn't "know" A is already there. In a nutshell, when you > cherry-pick, you need to do your own bookkeeping. Where do you see cherry-picking in the above commands: the -r argument always specifies just a revision on the branch, not a "A..B". Stefan