Comment 17 for bug 45719

On Mon, 2008-05-19 at 22:48 +0000, Miguel González Cuadrado wrote:
> @Michael: My point is that bug 183559 and this bug discuss the same
> missing feature, but this missing feature would be better implemented
> as part of the "switch" command than as part of the "update" command.
> The reason why "update" sounds more natural is that other revision
> systems perform the equivalent of "bzr update" and "bzr switch" under
> the single command "update". But the missing feature discussed here
> is closer to "bzr switch" than it is to "bzr update". Please take a
> look at bug 183559 discussion for details (and please tell me if I am
> wrong, or if I seem to be missing something).

I had looked at it, and it would seem to me to be similar in that this
sort of functionality is also desired with the switch command. For
example, in Subversion, you use update as a time machine within a
branch, and you use switch to move to another branch in the same
repository.

However, the major difference is that in Subversion, you use a whole
repository and store branches within it (and pseudobranches which are
tags, etc.). In bzr, you frequently use one branch in a directory,
optionally as part of a larger shared repository.

'bzr update' moves within a single branch, and 'bzr switch' moves among
different branches. This would mean that the -r useful would likely be
useful in both, with different use cases.

--
Michael B. Trausch <email address hidden>
home: 404-592-5746, 1 www.trausch.us
cell: 678-522-7934 im: <email address hidden>, jabber
Ubuntu Unofficial Backports Project: http://backports.trausch.us/