From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Thien-Thi Nguyen Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: log format for vc-bzr Date: Sat, 09 Jan 2010 14:35:26 +0100 Message-ID: <87zl4ne6zl.fsf@ambire.localdomain> References: <200912081747.nB8HlwPR021836@godzilla.ics.uci.edu> <871vj3sxgy.fsf@telefonica.net> <87ws0vrd46.fsf@telefonica.net> <87hbqxa9ti.fsf@ambire.localdomain> <87k4vtd1uy.fsf@telefonica.net> <83ljg9as4g.fsf@gnu.org> <873a2gkh0n.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <838wc8bxft.fsf@gnu.org> <874omwd7wx.fsf@telefonica.net> <83ocl4a60j.fsf@gnu.org> <87ocl4bie4.fsf@telefonica.net> <83ljg89ypj.fsf@gnu.org> <87bph4b9z4.fsf@telefonica.net> <83d41k9tgc.fsf@gnu.org> <877hrsb704.fsf@telefonica.net> <83aawo9qws.fsf@gnu.org> <873a2gb3jk.fsf@telefonica.net> <873a2f1x2s.fsf@ambire.localdomain> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1263044289 30814 80.91.229.12 (9 Jan 2010 13:38:09 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 9 Jan 2010 13:38:09 +0000 (UTC) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Jan 09 14:38:02 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 4.50) id 1NTbVw-0007wK-Mc for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 09 Jan 2010 14:38:01 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:40346 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1NTbVw-0004Ag-TD for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 09 Jan 2010 08:38:00 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1NTbVs-00049Q-CW for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 09 Jan 2010 08:37:56 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1NTbVr-000490-LM for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 09 Jan 2010 08:37:56 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=41242 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1NTbVr-00048x-DP for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 09 Jan 2010 08:37:55 -0500 Original-Received: from smtp-out13.alice.it ([85.33.2.18]:1094) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1NTbVq-0003Qz-UQ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 09 Jan 2010 08:37:55 -0500 Original-Received: from FBCMMO03.fbc.local ([192.168.68.197]) by smtp-out13.alice.it with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Sat, 9 Jan 2010 14:37:52 +0100 Original-Received: from FBCMCL01B04.fbc.local ([192.168.69.85]) by FBCMMO03.fbc.local with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Sat, 9 Jan 2010 14:37:52 +0100 Original-Received: from ambire.localdomain ([95.236.25.135]) by FBCMCL01B04.fbc.local with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Sat, 9 Jan 2010 14:37:52 +0100 Original-Received: from ttn by ambire.localdomain with local (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1NTbTS-00071X-JF for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 09 Jan 2010 14:35:26 +0100 In-Reply-To: (Andreas Schwab's message of "Sat, 09 Jan 2010 10:36:39 +0100") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1.90 (gnu/linux) X-OriginalArrivalTime: 09 Jan 2010 13:37:52.0364 (UTC) FILETIME=[F12482C0:01CA9130] X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: Windows 2000 SP4, XP SP1+ 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:119759 Archived-At: () Andreas Schwab () Sat, 09 Jan 2010 10:36:39 +0100 > It sounds like the naming error (in the option) lies with the verb > "forget", which in the construction "forget X" implies X has already > happened. If X is from the future, "don't bother to schedule X" is > better. But the merge _has_ happend, it just hasn't been comitted yet (which is always a separate step). I conceptualize likewise, but something said up-thread gave me the impression that in bzr terminology the commit delimits the "actual merging" (or "merge point" or ...). Regardless, hanging this off "bzr revert" is brain-damaged. thi