Please add pull --preview

[James Westby]

Hi,

Chris Jones (Ng) requested that now there is merge --preview
we also add pull --preview.

I explained that this can be done with diff, but explaining that
took a few steps and had a few caveats. Adding the option
makes it easier to remember, is perhaps more discoverable,
and fits in with merge --preview.

On the other hand, how many commands do we want to have
--preview for?

Thanks,

James

[John A Meinel (jameinel)]

There was at least a discussion thread that most "preview" style actions like 'diff' and 'missing' would be turned into options on the other commands. So "bzr merge --???" would show you the revisions (aka missing) and you have "bzr merge --preview" instead of using a diff command. (They give slightly different results, because merge --preview actually handles conflicts, etc, diff -rancestor:... only gives you the estimated diff.)

"bzr pull --preview" does seem reasonable. Though does it only give the diff to the WT, does it give a "log" listing?
This is probably better as a feature discussion/blueprint rather than a bug report. Though at least it is tracked somewhere.

[Kuno Meyer (kuno-meyer)]

For me, the main advantage of "bzr pull --preview" would be to be informed about the merge conflicts that had to be expected. In that case, "bzr merge --preview" doesn't work since in most of the time it would fail due to "uncommitted local changes".

So, for me, the ideal output of "pull --preview" would be what "bzr st" would display after actually having pulled.

[Alexander Belchenko (bialix)]

Kuno пишет:
> For me, the main advantage of "bzr pull --preview" would be to be
> informed about the merge conflicts that had to be expected. In that
> case, "bzr merge --preview" doesn't work since in most of the time it
> would fail due to "uncommitted local changes".

bzr merge --force --preview