merging unrelated branches

[Stefan Monnier]

>>> (you have to specify the revision range manually since there is no 
>>> common ancestor)
>> Once this happens, do they then have a common ancestor
> Yes: the revision you merged (and all its ancestors) will be common.

Indeed, but another issue is important: can the merge mark files from
each branch as being "the same"?  I.e. if I have foo/bar in one branch
and foo/bar in the other, can the merge result (via some conflict
resolution) in Bzr knowing that these are "the same file" so that
changes to foo/bar in either branch will be merged into the foo/bar of
the merged branch?
In Arch, this was easy to do by setting the arch-tag (or the
.arch-ids/foo.id file) accordingly, but since file-identities seem to be
kept implicit in Bazaar, it's unclear how to get this result.


        Stefan


PS: We use just this feature in Emacs where we have a two-way sync
between the Emacs tree and the Gnus tree, even tho it didn't start with
a shared ancestry.