From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: some bzrmerge.el questions Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2011 10:12:08 -0500 Message-ID: References: <1e7he81r9l.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <24mxn3cr6e.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <4D348332.4050207@gmx.at> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1295363547 11451 80.91.229.12 (18 Jan 2011 15:12:27 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2011 15:12:27 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Glenn Morris Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Jan 18 16:12:22 2011 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 1PfDEL-0007Wi-9T for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 18 Jan 2011 16:12:21 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:46435 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PfDEK-0005Jp-LV for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 18 Jan 2011 10:12:20 -0500 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=41485 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PfDEB-0005Ik-81 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 18 Jan 2011 10:12:12 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PfDEA-0001Ki-3g for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 18 Jan 2011 10:12:11 -0500 Original-Received: from ironport2-out.teksavvy.com ([206.248.154.181]:7150 helo=ironport2-out.pppoe.ca) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PfDE9-0001KF-Vl; Tue, 18 Jan 2011 10:12:10 -0500 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AvsEAI88NU1FpZbF/2dsb2JhbACkWXTBbYVQBIRvjjY X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.60,339,1291611600"; d="scan'208";a="88398049" Original-Received: from 69-165-150-197.dsl.teksavvy.com (HELO ceviche.home) ([69.165.150.197]) by ironport2-out.pppoe.ca with ESMTP/TLS/ADH-AES256-SHA; 18 Jan 2011 10:12:08 -0500 Original-Received: by ceviche.home (Postfix, from userid 20848) id 7379266102; Tue, 18 Jan 2011 10:12:08 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: (Glenn Morris's message of "Mon, 17 Jan 2011 22:04:24 -0500") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.50 (gnu/linux) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. 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:134706 Archived-At: > I realize I am confused by "skipping". Naively, I thought skipping > would exclude the relevant revision entirely. However, a comment in > bzrmerge-apply says that it still merges the meta-data. I guess this > explains why revno: 99634.2.749 "!!!DO NOT MERGE TO THE TRUNK!!!" [1] > now shows up in `bzr log -n0' output on the trunk, even though I said > it should be skipped. Isn't it confusing to not merge the data, but > still merge the meta-data? There is simply no way in Bzr to merge part of a branch history: the only kind of merge info recorded in the metadata says "all the branch upto has been merged". And really if you think about it, those "don't merge to trunk" changes are usually changes which have already been performed on the trunk (tho in a slightly different way, typically), so "applying" the corresponding change amounts to doing nothing: if you used "bzr merge" instead of "M-x bzrmerge", then you'd get spurious conflicts which you'd resolve by choosing the pre-existing trunk version. So bzrmerge just helps you avoid those conflicts. Stefan