Re: merge conlict?

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

Richard Stallman writes:
 >     What does this "merge conflict" in the commit message mean?
 > 
 > Whatever it means, it is too general.

Yes, the committer is now aware of that.  What he probably expected
was to create a history that would be displayed like this in "bzr log
-n0".  The right-hand column would not be displayed by default ("bzr
log").

3 Merge MAH's "Cook bar food"
                                3.3 [fix] merge conflict
                                3.2 merge Wonderful Changes from
                                    trunk and test for regressions
2 I have found many Wonderful
  Changes which this column is
  unfortunately too small to
  contain the description.
                                3.1 Cook bar food for Common Ancestor.
1 Common Ancestor slept here.

In many projects this is a recommended workflow, because most
regressions are caught on the branch, and do not trouble the community
at large.

Unfortunately, it is can be quite difficult to figure out exactly how
to implement any given workflow in bzr, because of the very large
number of ambiguously documented commands doing similar but somewhat
different things.  Once you figure it out, you often find that it's
quite efficient.

 > A response said:
 > 
 >     Both commits merge trunk into a branch.
 > 
 > "Merged trunk into a branch" implies that the branch has changed and
 > the trunk has not.  If so, why do we get a notification about it?

Because a third commit merged the branch into trunk.  When this
happens, you get a notification of this third merge commit, which is
the one labeled "merge conflict".