bzr pull vs. bzr update

[Juanma Barranquero]

On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 23:01, Karl Fogel <karl.fogel at canonical.com> wrote:
> John Arbash Meinel <john at arbash-meinel.com> writes:
>> If you have *local commits* pull will abort with diverged branches,
>> while update will turn your local commits into a merge into the new tip.
>> That is the primary difference between pull and update. Both preserve
>> working tree changes and allow them to be present.
>
> I was talking about local mods, not local commits, but actually you've
> answered my real question: we want 'pull', because the behavior you
> describe is what we're recommending for the Emacs dev workflow.

For trunk/ to have local commits, the developer would have had to use
"commit --local", which is hardly an accident. Do you prefer in this
case aborting the merge (from pull) instead of doing a merge in trunk?

    Juanma