kicad-developers team mailing list archive

[Dick Hollenbeck <dick@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

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.


Sadly, been there, done that.  Yes you can lose a month's worth of work
entirely.


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.


Thank you Wayne.  You made it hardly seem bazaar anymore.

Dick