Comment 5 for bug 842575

Revision history for this message
Martin von Gagern (gagern) wrote : Re: [Bug 842575] Re: Missing file reported after resolved removal conflict

On 05.10.2011 19:05, John A Meinel wrote:
> The issue is that 'bzr resolve' was originally designed as a "mark
> this as resolved".
> It needed 'bzr resolve --all' so that you wouldn't have to specify
> each file when you fixed 10 files.
> It then grew the ability to notice what was resolved and what wasn't,
> so you could just say "bzr resolve".
> It then grew the ability to take an action. So instead of being bzr
> 'mark-resolved' it suddenly became bzr 'help-me-resolve-the-conflict'.
> I feel like we really need to create 2 separate commands. It is
> possible the original intent should be the one renamed. (bzr
> mark-resolved, bzr resolved, etc.)

But notice that this bug here can be reproduced using the second
generation of the ancestry you sketched above: it uses --all so you
don't have to name the conflicting files individually, but it apart from
that, it can be reproduced with both the take-action and the flag-only
version of the command.

But as you mention the many different possible invocations: the
first generation style of naming the file to resolve gives the same
results as described in this report. The third generation version using
no arguments or options will report "0 conflicts auto-resolved." which
is the first useful statement in all of this. "bzr resolve --done
tree/foo" doesn't work either, so it's the mark-resolved which is broken.