Re: bzr workflow

["Óscar Fuentes" <ofv@wanadoo.es>]

Jan Djärv <jan.h.d@swipnet.se> writes:

> Óscar Fuentes skrev:
>
>>
>> There is something that I disagree with BzrForEmacsDevs: a quickfix that
>> requires more than one commit or that spans so long in time to warrant a
>> merge from upstream does not qualify as a quickfix for me.
>>
>
> This is too simple.  There have been many times in the CVS days when I
> tried to commit a change only to find out there was a conflict
> (usually ChangeLog). So I always merge from upstream before committing
> to upstream.

That's what `bzr up' does on a bound branch or checkout.

> So what you are saying is in fact, there are no quick fixes.
>
> What starts out as a (presumed) quickfix often turns in to a
> week/month long fix.  To assume that one can always beforehand descide
> if one is about to do a quickfix or not is also too simple minded.

You can easily turn your quickfixes/ branch into something else:

cd quickfixes/
bzr unbind   # Make this a regular branch
cd ..
mv quickfixes/ complex-fix-for-bug342
bzr branch trunk/ quickfixes  # Recreate quickfixes/ branch
cd quickfixes/
bzr bind URL_TO_UPSTREAM/trunk

There are methods for translating the uncommitted changes from one
branch to another too, if you prefer to not having to recreate the
quickfixes/ branch:

bzr branch trunk/ complex-fix-for-bug342
cd complex-fix-for-bug342
bzr merge --uncommitted ../quickfixes
cd ../quickfixes
bzr revert

> Bzr feels very strange and uncomfortable.  It is workable, but not
> smooth or elegant, just kind of icky.

IMO, for the case we are talking about, it works nicely.

-- 
Óscar