Re: [Monotone-devel] bugfest analysis - final points

[Stephen Leake]

Thomas Keller <address@hidden> writes:

> Am 16.05.10 11:19, schrieb Stephen Leake:
>> Thomas Keller <address@hidden> writes:
>> 
>>> For the others: If you think your branch is ready for the final merge,
>>> give me a note if you want to get it reviewed another time, otherwise
>>> just merge it.
>> 
>> For net.venge.monotone.bugfest-2010.13604-stephen_leake, I've removed
>> the --recursive option from 'undrop'. So I think this is ready to merge.
>> 
>> net.venge.monotone.restrictions.implicit-includes will change what
>> 'revert' does with some restrictions; since 'undrop' shares core code
>> with 'revert', there's no need to wait for that branch.
>
> I haven't followed your conversation with Derek further - just to get a
> ok from you both: undrop is still needed even after the new restriction
> code landed, right?

Yes, because the sequence:

drop foo
revert foo

clobbers a locally modified 'foo'; 'drop' doesn't actually delete it,
but 'revert' overwrites it.

The other alternative is:

drop foo
add foo

This keeps the modified file, but also changes the node id, losing history.

'undrop' solves both of these problems.

One alternative we did not really investigate would be:

drop foo
revert --move-conflicting-paths foo
cp _MTN/resolutions/foo .

That would be equivalent to 'undrop'. I think 'undrop' is friendlier.

-- 
-- Stephe