Re: base

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

Eli Zaretskii writes:

 > You are pushing a simple request ad absurdum.  I wasn't asking for
 > an exhaustive list of _all_possible_ workflows, only for a few
 > representative ones.  And please don't tell me that's impossible,
 > or even hard, because today I can easily do that for Bazaar.

No, you can provide some representative workflows that are enough for
you.  That's far from providing representative workflows that would be
enough to convince anyone who has actually used git that bzr is a
half-adequate replacement.

For example, suppose I ask, "How do I efficiently switch from one
branch to another in the same directory, like I do in git?"

Or "how do I rebase branch A from the common ancestor with branch B to
the grandparent of the head of branch C, which branched from trunk
before B did?"  And for a gold star, tell me whether it matters when B
branched from trunk.

I did both of those operations with git today, BTW, and the answer to
the gold star question for git is "no".

 > For complex and unconventional workflows, it _might_ be necessary
 > to use the history DAG to explain them, but for the common
 > workflows even that should not be necessary.

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?

And yes, I think it is fair to ask you to explain why a simple,
obvious, but deprecated workflow is deprecated.  That's as important
as describing the recommended workflows.  Not to mention that you
asked us, and you weren't alone.