kicad-developers team mailing list archive

[Wayne Stambaugh <stambaughw@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

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     : kicad-developers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>