On 6/30/2010 4:16 PM, Dick Hollenbeck wrote: > On 06/30/2010 02:46 PM, Wayne Stambaugh wrote: >> On 6/30/2010 2:48 PM, Dick Hollenbeck wrote: >> >>> On 06/30/2010 12:40 PM, Alex Leone wrote: >>> >>>> A similar thing happened with inkscape development and bzr. I don't >>>> know what the fix was but here's the "Proper way of merging": >>>> >>>> http://wiki.inkscape.org/wiki/index.php/Working_with_Bazaar#Proper_way_of_merging >>>> >>>> - Alex >>>> >>>> >>> >>> This "Inkscape Best Practices" scheme requires complete duplication of >>> the working area. Anybody aware of any alternatives which preserve the >>> revision history using a single personal branch (which is not a checkout)? >>> >> I'm not aware of any without using checkout or binding back to the >> testing repo before committing. You could always use checkout and >> commit --local to preserve you local branch changes and revision >> history. When you do a normal commit, your local commits will appear as >> a sub-branch in the testing repo. A good explanation of this can be >> found at: >> >> http://doc.bazaar.canonical.com/bzr.2.1/en/user-guide/working_offline_central.html >> >> This may or may not be what you are looking for. >> >> Wayne >> > > > The last section of the link you gave talks about using "update" after > having done some local commits. This is fine. There is danger here > however. If you do an update while unbound, you can loose vast amounts > of work from your own working-tree and branch *both*. Pure madness, > this is your own state of mind after it happens.
Yes. I would be extremely leery (read wouldn't do it) of using bind/unbind. > > > Sadly, been there, done that. Yes you can lose a month's worth of work > entirely. Ouch! > > > So I won't use those 2 commands any more, bind and unbind. This does > not preclude staying bound, and using commit --local however, which does > seem like a viable alternative to the Inkscape best practices scheme for > some. I'm not a big fan of the two branch method unless I'm working on something that would be completely disruptive to the testing branch. It seems like a lot of unnecessary work. I've been sticking to the centralize approach for most of my changes. > > > Thank you Wayne. You made it hardly seem bazaar anymore. I wish I could give you a more elegant solution. Ah, the joys of distributed VCSs. Wayne > > Dick > > > _______________________________________________ > Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers > Post to : [email protected] > Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers > More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp > _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
