From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2012 17:38:12 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 4/7] remote-bzr: update working tree
Message-ID: <7vtxs9vda3.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
In-Reply-To: <1352643598-8500-5-git-send-email-felipe.contreras@gmail.com>

Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com> writes:

> Signed-off-by: Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>
> ---
>  contrib/remote-helpers/git-remote-bzr | 2 ++
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/contrib/remote-helpers/git-remote-bzr b/contrib/remote-helpers/git-remote-bzr
> index 2c05f35..5b89a05 100755
> --- a/contrib/remote-helpers/git-remote-bzr
> +++ b/contrib/remote-helpers/git-remote-bzr
> @@ -571,6 +571,8 @@ def do_export(parser):
>              repo.generate_revision_history(revid, marks.get_tip('master'))
>              revno, revid = repo.last_revision_info()
>              peer.import_last_revision_info_and_tags(repo, revno, revid)
> +            wt = peer.bzrdir.open_workingtree()
> +            wt.update()
>          print "ok %s" % ref
>      print

Shouldn't this be squashed as part of one of the earlier patches?
The split between 1/7 (import first) and 2/7 (then support export)
makes sense, but this one looks more like "oops, we forgot to touch
the working tree while updating the history in the previous steps
and here is a fix" to me.