[rfc] 'bzr missing' for checkout could use master branch for comparing histories

[Martin Pool]

On  9 Aug 2006, Aaron Bentley <aaron.bentley at utoronto.ca> wrote:
> Martin Pool wrote:
> 
> > I think missing has some problems as it currently exists.  We should
> > think about them before adding more features.  
> > 
> > I find I almost always want to just know about the revisions on one
> > side (either --mine or --theirs).  The current default of showing both
> > makes it just hard to read the output.  Missing pretty much corresponds
> > to a preview of what will be done by push or pull or merge, and wanting
> > additional behaviour corresponding to update just makes that resemblance
> > stronger.
> 
> I just ran into the use case for showing both sides:
> 
> $ bzr pull
> Using saved location: http://code.aaronbentley.com/bzr/bzrrepo/bzrtools
> bzr: ERROR: These branches have diverged.  Use the merge command to
> reconcile them.
> 
> # Huh? How'd I get out of sync?
> 
> abentley at troll:~/bzrplugins/bzrtools$ bzr missing
> Using last location: http://code.aaronbentley.com/bzr/bzrrepo/bzrtools
> You have 1 extra revision(s):
>   424 Aaron Bentley     2006-07-31
>       Add bug report
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are missing 7 revision(s):
>   430 Aaron Bentley     2006-08-07
>       More updates for 0.9

That's a good case to consider.  It could possibly go into 'merge -ln',
which could list the new revisions on either side.  One might want to
see this when doing a non-dry-run merge, and it'd reduce the number of
commands.

-- 
Martin