[merge] update --revision

[Robert Collins]

On Sun, 2006-09-17 at 12:36 +0200, Matthieu Moy wrote:
> Robert Collins <robertc at robertcollins.net> writes:
> 
> > I think its better to offer --local if you want that.
> 
> If "update" has --local, then diff, cat, and any other command taking
> --revision should have it.

I think that that is reasonable.

...
> Since the local branch takes precedence in all other cases, update
> should not be the exception. And indeed, this -r 4 is most likely
> written by the user by looking at the output of "bzr log", which shows
> the local history.
> 
> Now, we could say simply that we match against the local branch, and
> fail otherwise. But I considered it better to try again after fetching
> from the master, but I admit one can argue against this.
> 
> One possible solution would be to fail if the revisionspec corresponds
> to a revision not in local history, and if there have been local
> commits.

I think that the reason the local branch takes precendence everywhere at
the moment is simply that the model of bound branches being checkouts
needed some evaluation - and to me it seems to be working very nicely,
so we should make the UI consistent with respect to it.

-Rob

-- 
GPG key available at: <http://www.robertcollins.net/keys.txt>.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 191 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/bazaar/attachments/20060927/935a5da9/attachment.pgp