From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Giorgos Keramidas Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Equivalent of release tags with bzr? Date: Thu, 31 Dec 2009 15:51:01 +0200 Message-ID: <87k4w3dzga.fsf@kobe.laptop> References: <878wclfso7.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <87r5qdxw7h.fsf@kobe.laptop> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1262267502 22720 80.91.229.12 (31 Dec 2009 13:51:42 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 31 Dec 2009 13:51:42 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Emacs development discussions To: Ken Raeburn Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Dec 31 14:51:35 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 1NQLR8-00045Y-Ne for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 31 Dec 2009 14:51:35 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:49510 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1NQLR9-0000Qb-3b for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 31 Dec 2009 08:51:35 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1NQLQt-0000Jf-7H for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 31 Dec 2009 08:51:19 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1NQLQo-0000Fu-Id for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 31 Dec 2009 08:51:18 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=37522 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1NQLQo-0000Fi-Db for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 31 Dec 2009 08:51:14 -0500 Original-Received: from poseidon.ceid.upatras.gr ([150.140.141.169]:50947) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1NQLQn-0003BQ-UD for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 31 Dec 2009 08:51:14 -0500 Original-Received: from mail.ceid.upatras.gr (unknown [10.1.0.143]) by poseidon.ceid.upatras.gr (Postfix) with ESMTP id DCC5EEB486E; Thu, 31 Dec 2009 15:51:12 +0200 (EET) Original-Received: from localhost (europa.ceid.upatras.gr [127.0.0.1]) by mail.ceid.upatras.gr (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED31C44FE0; Thu, 31 Dec 2009 15:51:15 +0200 (EET) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ceid.upatras.gr Original-Received: from mail.ceid.upatras.gr ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (europa.ceid.upatras.gr [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id klFb8USymr1G; Thu, 31 Dec 2009 15:51:15 +0200 (EET) Original-Received: from kobe.laptop (ppp-94-64-238-171.home.otenet.gr [94.64.238.171]) by mail.ceid.upatras.gr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E4B144FDF; Thu, 31 Dec 2009 15:51:15 +0200 (EET) Original-Received: from kobe.laptop (kobe.laptop [127.0.0.1]) by kobe.laptop (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id nBVDpBTf003496 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 31 Dec 2009 15:51:11 +0200 (EET) (envelope-from keramida@ceid.upatras.gr) Original-Received: (from keramida@localhost) by kobe.laptop (8.14.3/8.14.3/Submit) id nBVDp9DH003491; Thu, 31 Dec 2009 15:51:09 +0200 (EET) (envelope-from keramida@ceid.upatras.gr) In-Reply-To: (Ken Raeburn's message of "Thu, 31 Dec 2009 00:50:34 -0500") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1.90 (berkeley-unix) 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:119150 Archived-At: --=-=-= On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 00:50:34 -0500, Ken Raeburn wrote: > On Dec 29, 2009, at 17:16, Giorgos Keramidas wrote: >> If your local branch is not bound, then you can "bzr push" it. You >> can ignore the slightly misleading message "bzr push" will show. For >> some reason bzr treats tags in a special way reports that "no >> revisions have been pushed", but the tag is installed in the remote >> repository as one would expect. > > Well, a tag isn't a separate revision, is it? So the message is > accurate, if misleading. Perhaps bzr *should* treat tags specially in > that pushing them upstream should be noted, or at least the "no > revisions pushed" message could be suppressed or altered. Yes, the message is accurate, but still misleading because *some* sort of change *has* been propagated from one place to another. On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 10:40:42 +0100, Andreas Schwab wrote: > bzr should at least say that a tag was pushed, as a confirmation that > the upstream branch was changed. It should also confirm when a tag > was downloaded. My point exactly. I feel a bit 'odd' when things are downloaded or pushed without any sort of notice. Especially if they are important parts of the branch history like tags. On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 13:40:24 +0100, Christian Faulhammer wrote: > https://bugs.launchpad.net/bzr/+bug/164450 Ok, this is nice. The bzr developers will update the client when the bug is fixed :-) --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.11 (FreeBSD) iEYEARECAAYFAks8rE0ACgkQ1g+UGjGGA7b09wCfWV6NnJBq3VQpF2dFzHOKriKk 1SMAoI7azkpCeoBXlhf59Bn/dOQWlva7 =/Bvt -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--