Re: Help me unstick my bzr, please.

[Giorgos Keramidas <keramida@ceid.upatras.gr>]

On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 11:57:03 +0200, Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> wrote:
>> From: Giorgos Keramidas <keramida@ceid.upatras.gr>
>> Cc: acm@muc.de, emacs-devel@gnu.org
>> Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2010 11:02:04 +0200
>>
>> > Why not simply
>> >
>> >   ~/emacs/emacs.bzr/quickfixes$ bzr merge --force
>>
>> To be honest, because I don't know for sure what merge --force does
>> under the hood.
>>
>> It sounds like it will solve the immediate problem of having a
>> quickfixes branch half-way through a merge, but it also seems it will
>> create a merge commit that includes both the pending merge changes *and*
>> the small fix in the same changes.
>
> Except for "bzr bisect", who else will be bothered by this?

It's conceivable that nobody will notice.  Committing a merge that joins
two history 'heads' in the DAG separately and then a small diff on top
of that serves mostly as a very easy way to keep the diff of the quick
fix really-really small.  This is a useful property, but it's not like
the world will end if we don't do it.