marrying bundle and directive? (Re: [MERGE] Merge directive format 2, Bundle format 4)

[Aaron Bentley]

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

Ian Clatworthy wrote:
> In the current UI, I feel that bundle has a lower barrier to adoption
> than merge-directive mostly because merge-directive requires a source
> URL while bundle doesn't.

I don't think that's accurate.  Bundle uses a source URL the vast
majority of the time.  The few times it doesn't use it is when people
specify -r directly.  -r for bundles is a disaster.  When people specify
"bzr bundle -r -2..-1", what they want is for the preview to show only
those changes.  They're not trying to create an unmergeable bundle, but
they are, because typically -2 will not be present in the upstream.

The source URL is tremendously valuable, because it provides information
about what revisions need to be in the bundle for the merge to succeed.
 It defaults to the parent branch, so it rarely needs to be specified.

While merge directives always need a source URL, it doesn't have to be
specified.  If it's not, the submit branch or parent branch will be
used.  And because the always have a submit branch, specifying -r is
quite safe with merge directives.  It will create a merge directive
encompassing only the specified changes, and that will be reflected in
the preview.  But if the merge directive contains a bundle, that bundle
will still contain all the revisions necessary to perform the merge.

If we use a single command, I want it to use a source URL, the way merge
directives do.

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

iD8DBQFGiIFa0F+nu1YWqI0RAps0AJ0WaD15rTHbf9a53HRBnRnyUbBSkACfX5sB
mhPcv8BMFI62wPK11hPtyoA=
=e1YJ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----