Re: vc-update for bzr etc.

[Stefan Monnier <monnier@IRO.UMontreal.CA>]

>> VC tries to present a uniform UI and that is good, but trying to impose
>> a uniform semantics to all commands is asking too much.  So I think it's
>> perfectly OK for vc-pull/update to do "bzr pull" for Bzr and
>> "git pull" for Git, even if they don't do exactly the same thing.

> bzr pull -- synchronize branch to parent exactly, never does a
>             non-trivial merge, sometimes operates on a non-local
>             branch and not on the workspace IIRC.
> git pull -- merges branch into workspace, commits unless conflict,
>             never affects a branch outside of the workspace.
> hg pull  -- fetches branch, never updates workspace or affects a
>             branch outside of the workspace.

> I don't see the point of having a single command whose implementation
> can vary so randomly.

That's OK: "cvs pull" is even further from the above, so my suggestion
is not to "just pass `pull' to the backend command" but "run the normal
command to update the current tree by bringing in changes from
upstream".  Based on what you say, vc-pull for Mercurial would not just
do "hg pull" but something more.


        Stefan