Make --append-revisions-only the default for new branches
Affects | Status | Importance | Assigned to | Milestone | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Bazaar |
Confirmed
|
Medium
|
Unassigned | ||
Breezy |
Triaged
|
Medium
|
Unassigned |
Bug Description
It was confusing as a new Bazaar user to find that the central branch (which I created by reading and following all obvious direction) had its revision history change every time a developer used "push" to integrate his or her changes into the central branch.
The central branch should never tolerate, by default, any changes to its existing revision history, at least remotely.
Really, I only use remote branches for two use cases:
* A mirror of a local branch, in which case the remote branch will always trivially append changes from my local branch.
* A collaborative branch, in which I want existing history to be immutable by collaborators.
There may be a use case for doing wacky things to the revision history on the remote branch, and I'm fine with supporting that, but it should not be the default.
Changed in bzr: | |
importance: | Wishlist → Medium |
tags: | added: check-for-breezy |
Changed in brz: | |
status: | New → Triaged |
importance: | Undecided → Medium |
tags: | removed: check-for-breezy |
This is really more of a wishlist/mailing list discussion topic than a specific bug.
There has been a fair amount of discussion in this merge proposal about append_ revisions_ only handling: /code.launchpad .net/~slyguy/ bzr/bzr. strict_ append_ revisions_ only/+merge/ 18267
https:/
I don't think there has been any sort of vote on it, to determine who really uses 'bzr pull' to pull in stuff from another branch without merging and 'bzr merge --pull', etc.
Note that mysql devs have also generally refused to set append_ revisions_ only on their trunk branch, as it was considered too disruptive for the development workflow that they are used to.