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: base Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 19:09:20 +0100 Message-ID: References: <20100822120642.GA1794@muc.de> <871v9o7dmf.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <87wrrg5rzg.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <87r5ho5gyr.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <87hbij6hib.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <87k4nf7ezq.fsf@catnip.gol.com> <878w3v7dd2.fsf@catnip.gol.com> <83wrrfmljv.fsf@gnu.org> <87d3t75crc.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <87fwy2g7i2.fsf@telefonica.net> <83r5hmmrz0.fsf@gnu.org> <877hjefll8.fsf@telefonica.net> <83mxsam5lh.fsf@gnu.org> <87eidm5a0n.fsf@catnip.gol.com> <87y6bt4p01.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1282846200 18531 80.91.229.12 (26 Aug 2010 18:10:00 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 18:10:00 +0000 (UTC) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Aug 26 20:09:58 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 1Oogtb-0003I0-RE for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 26 Aug 2010 20:09:52 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:58805 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Oogtb-000807-1P for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 26 Aug 2010 14:09:51 -0400 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=43230 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OogtP-0007qj-Ht for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 26 Aug 2010 14:09:44 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OogtO-0002mk-36 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 26 Aug 2010 14:09:39 -0400 Original-Received: from lo.gmane.org ([80.91.229.12]:55295) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OogtN-0002mR-MA for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 26 Aug 2010 14:09:38 -0400 Original-Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OogtL-00037E-4H for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 26 Aug 2010 20:09:35 +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 ; Thu, 26 Aug 2010 20:09:35 +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 ; Thu, 26 Aug 2010 20:09:35 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Original-Lines: 35 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: <87y6bt4p01.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> 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:129266 Archived-At: On 8/26/2010 12:01 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote: > OK, if it's not necessary, do it. Specifically, explain why pushing > directly from a working branch to the upstream repository "just like > a CVS commit" (which has got to be as simple and conventional as it > gets, right?) is a bad idea in Bazaar. No references to the DAG are > allowed, because they're unnecessary, right? Ok, let me take a crack at this. You have a local mirror, which has a pull/push relationship to the upstream, and a working branch, which has a pull/push relationship to the local mirror. Now you push from the working branch to upstream. Let us say revisions 101...103 get pushed. Next I pull into the local mirror. These revisions get pulled there. And, then, sometime later, I pull from the local mirror to the working branch. Will I get new copies of 101...103 into the working branch, or will Bazaar know that they were already there? I haven't got a clue! My strategy with Bazaar is generally to do only the operations that I know to work. These are either the workflows already covered in the documents, or others that are reasonably similar to them. There isn't enough information out there to help me figure out what will happen with tricky flows like these. And, I don't want to end up in a deep soup with a corrupted repository. So, if I accidentally ended up in this situation, I would play it safe by deleting the working branch and creating a new one. If I actually do a circular push-pull without realizing that I was doing it and it actually worked, I will probably realize later that Bazaar handles cycles ok, and be comfortable doing it again in future. So, I am really like a monkey playing a piano. Or, maybe, the piano is playing me! Cheers, Uday