Re: GNU Emacs is on Bazaar now.

[Óscar Fuentes]

Karl Fogel <address@hidden> writes:

> So if people made their one-line changes this way:
>
>   $ cd ${EMACS_DEV_AREA}/trunk
>   $ bzr pull
>   $ <<< make one-line obvious typo fix, edit ChangeLog file too >>>
>   $ bzr commit -m "* README: Fix silly typo."
>   <<< change automatically sent from local bound trunk to upstream trunk >>>
>   $ 
>
> would there be any negative consequences?  It violates the "keep local
> trunk as pristine as possible" rule, and people will run into
> complexities if upstream diverges from local trunk before their commit
> is ready (they'd have to revert, re-pull, and redo, or something like
> that).

Please note that I'm not recommending to use the local mirror as a
quickfix area. I prefer to have a separate quickfix branch bound to
upstream. With that setup, the hack-commit cycle is almost identical to
CVS or Subversion, with the only difference being that an `update' is
often required before the `commit'.

(As you know, on a bound branch you do not `pull', you `update'. No need
to revert if upstream diverged, because `update' merges upstream's
changes into your edited files, as CVS does. That `pull' works on a
bound branch was discussed some days ago on the bzr ml after a question
by Juanma and IIRC the conclusion was that it is accidental.)

> Those are the reasons we didn't recommend it in the doc.  But aside
> from those problems, could there be any negative consequences to the
> versioned history?  I think not, but would like more knowledgeable
> people to comment.

-- 
Óscar