Re: merge conlict?

[Óscar Fuentes]

Andreas Schwab <address@hidden> writes:

> Óscar Fuentes <address@hidden> writes:
>
>> Andreas Schwab <address@hidden> writes:
>>
>>> Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden> writes:
>>>
>>>>> Not much different from
>>>>> eg. address@hidden
>>>>
>>>> That merge is made of Katsumi Yamaoka's changes.
>>>
>>> I don't understand that sentence.  Can you clarify?
>>>
>>>> Which is not true for Mark's merge.
>>>
>>> Both commits merge trunk into a branch.  How are they different?
>>
>> Katsumi Yamaoka merges his changes into trunk,
>
> No, it merges trunk into a branch.

That's right for the specific revid you mention. But what matters here
is the effect on trunk's history. Katsumi Yamaoka's merge was merged
back into trunk and it was incorporated as merged history. You can't see
it unless you explictly ask for the merged history. It does not cause
huge diffs, nor large lists of modified files. It is the result of

somebranch $ bzr merge ../trunk
somebranch $ bzr commit
somebranch $ bzr merge ../trunk
somebranch $ bzr commit
somebranch $ bzr merge ../trunk
somebranch $ bzr commit
  < some more repetitions elided >
  <hack something>
somebranch $ bzr commit
somebranch $ cd ../trunk
trunk $ bzr merge ../somebranch
trunk $ bzr commit

which is precisely what he wiki documentation describes. You have a
number of merge commits hiddend in the merged history, but diffs are
fine and only the files edited by the committer are marked as modified
by the change.

OTOH, Mark looks like more

somebranch $ bzr merge URL_TO_UPSTREAM_TRUNK
somebranch $ bzr commit
somebranch $ bzr push URL_TO_UPSTREAM_TRUNK

which causes havoc.