reverse merge....

[John Arbash Meinel]

Robert Collins wrote:
> On Mon, 2006-09-11 at 21:37 +0200, Erik Bågfors wrote:
> 
> 
...

>>> I really do think it is much cleaner to have an upstream checkout, and
>>> another working directory. It also gets them prepared when they want to
>>> work on more than one branch at a time.
>> Me also, my suggestion (which is how I plan on working myself) is to
>> have one checkout, then branch that checkout into a new branch, hack
>> in, then merge back to the checkout when I feel ready.
>>
>> That feels very natural for me, but people do not understand why you
>> should need multiple branches on local machine.
>>
>> People coming from cvs/svn doesn't quite think the same way about
>> branches as I do (ie. branches are good, create many :) )
> 
> Do I understand their complaint correctly:
> 'On CVS I only need one checkout, but here I need a checkout and a
> branch, OR, I need to give --local to commit, OR, I cannot commit
> offline'?
> 
> 
>>> But if you are getting a lot of negative feedback about it, I'm sure
>>> there are other things we can do.
>> Personally, I really like the "checkout and commit with --local being
>> default" model.
> 
> I think thats a good model - if most of your work is offline, using
> commit --local as default, and passing --not-local when you are online,
> should work well.
> 
> Rob

My one concern from this, is that if people are genuinely comming from
CVS, I don't think they have the idea of pushing their changes back. The
will feel that after doing 'bzr commit' their changes have been
published. (Because that *is* true if 'cvs commit' succeeds).

You are having people work mostly like they used to, only having a
secret step where their stuff isn't actually sent to the remote server
until they invoke a special command. And in this case, it is actually 2
commands 'bzr update; bzr commit --no-local'.

If they want to work in CVS like mode, just have them use a single
checkout, and don't confuse them with --local/--no-local.

If they don't understand why they would need/want 2 local branches,
don't give them 2 local branches. Just have them dogpile on a single branch.

It just seems like you are trading one form of confusion with another
form, and people still aren't getting much benefit out of bzr. (Unless
the only thing that they wish they had with cvs was offline commits)

John
=:->

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 254 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/bazaar/attachments/20060911/07c2bedc/attachment.pgp