Comment 9 for bug 149270
Revision history for this message
| Martin von Gagern (gagern) wrote Re: [Bug 149270] Re: revisionspec in_history calls fetch, which requires the branch to be writable | #9 |
© 2004
Canonical Ltd.
•
Terms of use
•
Data privacy
•
Contact Launchpad Support
•
Blog
•
Careers
•
System status
•
1b1ed1a
(Get the code!)
On 24.06.2010 23:11, John A Meinel wrote:
> For comparison "bzr XXX -r -1:path" will do the same thing as "bzr XXX
> -r branch:path", but will fail if those revs aren't present locally (for
> most commands XXX).
OK, so this is along the lines of your comment #2 b) about "Overhaul the
revision code to be more flexible about getting branches from the spec,
rather than elsewhere", right?
For XXX = log it seems to work. For those commands that use write locks,
it will work as well, as in that cases old behaviour is maintained. This
leads to the difference between diff and vimdiff reported in bug 503031,
I assume.
So for now, the fix from my branch will allow a few cases that used to
fail before, and will probably cause others to fail in different places
than they used to. On the whole, I'd consider it a step in the right
direction, in particular as it doesn't break any existing selftests. I
would deem commands that disregard the branch from the spec to be a
separate problem worth a separate bug report, or maybe even one report
for each broken command.