bzr pull vs. bzr update

[Karl Fogel]

Juanma Barranquero <lekktu at gmail.com> writes:
> 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?

Yes, I think so -- the point of the trunk mirror is to not diverge.