revert should tell the user what pending merges were thrown away

[Jelmer Vernooij]

  affects bzr

"bzr revert" when it throws away pending merges should tell the user
what command to run to get those pending merges back, e.g.:

Pending merges removed. To restore, run "bzr merge -rrevid:<somerevid>"
--
Jelmer Vernooij <email address hidden> - http://samba.org/~jelmer/
Jabber: <email address hidden>

[Alexander Belchenko (bialix)]

Jelmer Vernooij пишет:
> Public bug reported:
>
> affects bzr
>
> "bzr revert" when it throws away pending merges should tell the user
> what command to run to get those pending merges back, e.g.:
>
> Pending merges removed. To restore, run "bzr merge -rrevid:<somerevid>"

I agree. But there could be several pending merges heads (octopus merge
scenario). So info message might be more complicated.

[Aaron Bentley (abentley)]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Alexander Belchenko wrote:
> Jelmer Vernooij пишет:
>> Public bug reported:
>>
>> affects bzr
>>
>> "bzr revert" when it throws away pending merges should tell the user
>> what command to run to get those pending merges back, e.g.:
>>
>> Pending merges removed. To restore, run "bzr merge -rrevid:<somerevid>"
>
> I agree. But there could be several pending merges heads (octopus merge
> scenario). So info message might be more complicated.

I think it's ugly and unnecessary. If you want to restore a pending
merge, just do whatever you did to merge in the first place.

Yes, update is broken. But we shouldn't be degrading everyone's
user-experience to accommodate it.

Aaron
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFH9S8s0F+nu1YWqI0RAgMdAJ4lMDnrI9G1UPcoWga+YwQM1QylpACfQ1Ai
8oal8SIscLvtdmFLpyyaXJU=
=OBW3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Alexander Belchenko (bialix)]

Aaron Bentley пишет:
> Yes, update is broken. But we shouldn't be degrading everyone's
> user-experience to accommodate it.

Probably I missing something. What do you mean when you say "update is broken"?

[Aaron Bentley (abentley)]

When there are local commits, update resets the branch's last_revision and makes the tree's last_revision into a pending merge. Doing this means that if the user reverts, they throw away their local commits.

If we just fix update so that it doesn't create a situation where revert will throw away local commits, this complaint would go away.

Aaron

[Robert Collins (lifeless)]

On Fri, 2008-04-04 at 05:46 +0000, Aaron Bentley wrote:
>
> When there are local commits, update resets the branch's last_revision
> and makes the tree's last_revision into a pending merge. Doing this
> means that if the user reverts, they throw away their local commits.
>
> If we just fix update so that it doesn't create a situation where
> revert
> will throw away local commits, this complaint would go away.

That would involve crippling update.

-Rob

--
GPG key available at: <http://www.robertcollins.net/keys.txt>.

[Aaron Bentley (abentley)]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Robert Collins wrote:
>> If we just fix update so that it doesn't create a situation where
>> revert
>> will throw away local commits, this complaint would go away.
>
> That would involve crippling update.

No it wouldn't.

Aaron
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFH+Xqp0F+nu1YWqI0RAhImAJoDMdR58gtqCag3eI7I9f2X6GlGIQCffPro
pEH+OyC+x2+j2OkSPQWyZoM=
=ve/u
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Robert Collins (lifeless)]

How do you propose changing update then?

-Rob