Re: [PATCH v3 4/7] remote-bzr: update working tree

From: Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>
Date: Dec 13, 2012, 22:08 UTC
Message-ID: <CAMP44s1ZdMK+0_pP3qkZUepOvkfMaXeY2BV0MFu5YOSV=40Dcw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <7vtxs9vda3.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>

On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 11:38 AM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:

Show 25 quoted lines

> 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.

Perhaps. It's not really clear if we should update the working tree at all. A 'git push' doesn't update the working directory on the remote, but a 'bzr push' does. I thought it was better to leave this distinction clear, in case this becomes an issue later on.

Cheers.

-- 
Felipe Contreras