Confusing help in 'update' when using the word "merge"

Bug #667452 reported by Lluís Vilanova
10
This bug affects 2 people
Affects Status Importance Assigned to Milestone
Bazaar
Confirmed
Low
Unassigned

Bug Description

The first phrase in 'bzr help update' reads:

> This will perform a merge into the working tree, and may generate conflicts.

This triggered a WTF on me, as it made me think about 'bzr merge'.

I couldn't completely understand the concept at hand until I read the 'bzr help working-trees'.

So maybe using a different word would make the issue clearer, making a difference between the "merge" among histories ('bzr merge') and the "merge" of changes into a working-tree.

This is also to say that maybe showing this link on the user guide would benefit the new users to clarify the differences on the pairs branch/checkout and pull/update (the "target types" in 'bzr help reconfigure' provided the final click to my understanding).

On the first pair, I think it should be clearly stated on the starting documentation that the concept is two-dimensional: the boundness of the branch and the "working-treeness" of the branch (but everything is a branch!)... unless I got it all wrong :)

Mental note: In fact, what would happen if I performed a merge into a branch without a working-tree? Can conflicts still arise? And how to manage them?

Revision history for this message
John A Meinel (jameinel) wrote : Re: [Bug 667452] [NEW] Confusing help in 'update' when using the word "merge"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

...

>
> Mental note: In fact, what would happen if I performed a merge into a
> branch without a working-tree? Can conflicts still arise? And how to
> manage them?

You can't do a merge without a working tree.

John
=:->
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Cygwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAkzIr2AACgkQJdeBCYSNAAM+wwCcCOs66zuUgnr+x0GX6HFGKXKE
kO4An1XXCMIP7nVq/9NplsXde9eu9Krp
=vVtD
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Revision history for this message
Martin Pool (mbp) wrote :

Perhaps it would be clearer in the held if we explained more about the
merge, ie that we're merging tree_basis..new_tree_basis.

The concepts stuff should be checked against the user guide.

Changed in bzr:
status: New → Confirmed
importance: Undecided → Low
Jelmer Vernooij (jelmer)
tags: added: check-for-breezy
To post a comment you must log in.
This report contains Public information  
Everyone can see this information.

Other bug subscribers

Remote bug watches

Bug watches keep track of this bug in other bug trackers.