From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Uday S Reddy Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Locks on the Bzr repository Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2010 15:56:50 +0100 Message-ID: References: <4C6D56DB.7040703@swipnet.se> <4C6D8EC5.7040901@swipnet.se> <4C6E1F0A.7070506@swipnet.se> <837hjlr78p.fsf@gnu.org> <87zkwhtws5.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <83tymppj62.fsf@gnu.org> <871v9t8klf.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <83lj81pazq.fsf@gnu.org> <83aaogpcbu.fsf@gnu.org> <19567.50977.609000.549262@gargle.gargle.HOWL> <87sk286pv9.fsf@telefonica.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1282402659 1546 80.91.229.12 (21 Aug 2010 14:57:39 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2010 14:57:39 +0000 (UTC) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Aug 21 16:57:37 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 1OmpVn-0002gB-Fi for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 21 Aug 2010 16:57:35 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:58667 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OmpVm-0000qJ-Vi for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 21 Aug 2010 10:57:35 -0400 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=42084 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OmpVh-0000pe-7R for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 21 Aug 2010 10:57:30 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OmpVg-0006NZ-4W for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 21 Aug 2010 10:57:29 -0400 Original-Received: from lo.gmane.org ([80.91.229.12]:39412) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OmpVf-0006NQ-R6 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 21 Aug 2010 10:57:28 -0400 Original-Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OmpVc-0002bq-Qb for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 21 Aug 2010 16:57:24 +0200 Original-Received: from cpc10-harb6-0-0-cust112.perr.cable.virginmedia.com ([92.232.137.113]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sat, 21 Aug 2010 16:57:24 +0200 Original-Received: from u.s.reddy by cpc10-harb6-0-0-cust112.perr.cable.virginmedia.com with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sat, 21 Aug 2010 16:57:24 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Original-Lines: 24 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: cpc10-harb6-0-0-cust112.perr.cable.virginmedia.com User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.8) Gecko/20100802 Thunderbird/3.1.2 In-Reply-To: <87sk286pv9.fsf@telefonica.net> X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.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:128967 Archived-At: On 8/21/2010 2:45 PM, Óscar Fuentes wrote: > Not really (for the workflow advertised by Stephen and Karl.) "Stephen" is Stephen Turnbull? But he is arguing for unbound branches now. > At the time (and possibly still now) rebasing was not the soundest part > of bzr. So the remaining workflows were "merge+push" and > "pull". "merge+push" have the serious inconveniences described on my > other post on this thread. So Stephen went for the remaining one: > "pull", which is simulated with bound branches. When a developer does > "merge+commit" on his local branch bound to upstream, it is the > equivalent of `pull' on the remote branch. Thank you very much. This makes perfect sense. If you don't trust rebase, and there are good reasons not to, then the current workflow is probably the best way of doing things. And, given the workflow, bound branches serve the purpose perfectly fine. I get it now. Given the situation, moving to git would seem like a good idea, because its rebase is trustworthy and should improve matters enormously. Cheers, Uday