[PATCH] Branch and pull-- now with remote

[Erik Bågfors]

On 5/29/05, Aaron Bentley <aaron.bentley at utoronto.ca> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> Erik Bågfors wrote:
> > Wow... this is soo cool.  I just tried it and it works great!
> 
> I should hasten to point out that 99.9% of the remote stuff is Martin's
> work.  I added a single line in there.

Still great! :)
 
> > now, if we only merge was able to use the same source as pull by default
> >
> > : [bagfors at zyrgelkwyt]$ ; bzr pull
> > bzr: error: These branches have diverged.  Try merge.
> >
> > : [bagfors at zyrgelkwyt]$ ; bzr merge
> 
> Well, I can do that, but merge doesn't support remote branches yet.  And
> you might want to have more than one merge source, whereas I think it
> makes sense to have just one pull source.

Might be true.. but there should be some way to refer to the default
branch.  Branch must somehow store which branch it was branched from,
so that pull knows what to pull (terrible sentence :) ).

bzr merge default? (Maybe not)...

> > And... then of course, merging/cherrypicking and still keeping the
> > changesets/comitter/messages etc :)
> 
> Err, what changesets?  I come from the Arch land, and in Arch, you
> *refer* to the revisions you merged, but you don't *represent* those
> revisions in any way.

Well, if I create a neat feature, and I put that on a branch
somewhere, and you cherry-pick it, and it doesn't conflict. Why
shouldn't I be the committer, keep my commit-message, etc?

That's all I meant, sorry if that was unclear.

/Erik