[00:04] so basically I did: bzr import firefox-12.0.tar.bz2 upstream [00:05] then bzr commit -m'ff12' [00:05] then bzr import firefox-13.0.tar.bz2 upstream [00:05] bzr commit -m'ff13' [00:05] then in my other (previously existing branch), I do: bzr merge upstream [00:06] does this make all sense? [00:06] looks like the two imports worked [00:07] but since my own branch is not related to upstream in any kind, since I created it beforehand, I get this when trying to merge: [00:07] bzr: ERROR: Branches have no common ancestor, and no merge base revision was specified. [00:08] so base revision I should probably put 1 [00:08] i guess [00:08] since a commit in my branch corresponds to Firefox 12 [00:09] lduros: so before you figure out how to fix this, [00:09] AfC: ? [00:10] lduros: I assume you recognize that if you had *started* with the imports and *then* created your own working branch(es) they would have had said common ancestor and all this would be Just Working™ [00:10] yes i know but I started that a while ago [00:10] sure [00:10] my own branch, I mean [00:10] just setting the scene here [00:10] lots of people don't realize that part [00:10] yes, in retrospect I should have done it [00:10] :-) [00:10] now we just need to fix the scenario you've found yourself in [00:11] lduros: rude question: how much history do you have on your working branch? [00:11] 112 revisions, not that bad I guess [00:11] lduros: a lot? only one or two [00:11] I could probably just apply a patch [00:11] No, that's a lot [00:11] and forget about it [00:11] so you're not going to want to throw that away. [00:12] (sure, you could throw it away, but why should you have to?) [00:12] well, I don't know, if it's easier I could [00:12] at this point, as far as I know, you have two options [00:12] ok [00:12] lduros: (it's *certainly* easier) [00:12] ok [00:12] I don't see how... [00:12] so what if I do this: [00:12] lduros: but it's also Wrong and the one thing that Bazaar has going for it over the other DVCSen is that it acts correctly. [00:13] hmm, not sure how to interpret this [00:13] fullermd: (because just dumping his current tree onto the upstream import will create a single delta that he can commit and then we can all move on and go drink coffee. Easier. More to the point, easier than:) [00:13] lduros: at this point, as far as I know, you have two options: [00:14] 1) use bzr rebase [00:14] ok [00:14] 2) use some magic merge that gets around the common ancestor problem. [00:14] the magic merge seems tricky [00:14] I think it's way easier than either of those two. [00:14] I have a feeling that (2) exists, but I don't know the syntax :( [00:14] You started with FF 12 and then made a pile of changes on top, neh? [00:14] fullermd: if you've got (3) please, speak up [00:14] and also I added the upstream files with a non-empty branch already [00:14] meaning I had files in there [00:14] hah [00:15] yeh, so maybe i'll try to take the current version I have (which is IceCat 12) [00:15] fullermd: right, so how can he merge a branch with 112 revisions from scratch (and some monster revision as #1 I bet) starting onto a branch with 2 imports of two versions of upstream? [00:15] Take IceCat 12 and take Firefox 12, make a patch using diff [00:15] Oh, that wasn't what I read from your descriptions. That does make it harder. [00:16] then create an upstream branch, import FF12 [00:16] Well, in my mind his r1 was already upstream 12, so he could just make a 'new' branch from that to use as the upstream. Put 13 on that, then merge it in; done. [00:17] fullermd: it was more like r41 which was upstream 12 + custom stuff [00:17] so it's really a tangled mess [00:17] :-) [00:17] I'm willing to just keep it as an archive branch [00:17] Is your custom stuff off on the side, or all intertwined in the existing files? [00:18] mostly on the side I guess [00:18] but some might be intertwined, not much [00:18] but I'm a bit lazy also [00:18] :-) [00:18] and maybe sometimes it's better to start clean [00:18] If you can isolate the changes in the existing files into a few small bits, you may be able to create a pure upstream 12 branch, dump the 'old' files you have and merge that in place, put your changes back into them, then go on with later version merges. [00:18] ok [00:19] That would save all the history in your other files, and have the original versions of your changes sitting in the history too. [00:19] It would bloat up your repo with a giant delete and a giant add though. [00:19] And of course the "same" files wouldn't be related to each other historically. [00:19] haha [00:19] right [00:20] alright, let me try [00:20] The latter is suboptimal ugliness that can be considered historical archive. The former is some level of added size burden you'd carry forever; whether it's significant I don't know. [00:21] I have vague memories that the groupcompress format will compress content across file identities, in which case it may not be a big bump. [00:21] yeh, I'm not sure, what I want to make sure is that all my custom changes are there [00:21] But if it doesn't, it would be. [00:21] I'd judge the real question to be whether or not you will be continuing to track upstream. If so, then it's worth getting on to a workflow based on their releases, rather than your original tree. [00:21] yes sure i'll keep tracking upstream [00:21] otherwise, it's not entirely clear what the goal is [00:21] Definitely. Doing a 12->13 merge up manually would suck. Having a 14 and 15 and 16 after that too would be nightmarish. [00:21] right [00:21] (and anyway, it's FF, so you'd have to do one of those, what, every 36 hours or something, when they make a new major release?) [00:22] :-P [00:22] alright, I'll experiment a bit, look again at these advice [00:22] and try to get somewhere :-] === AfC is now known as AfC|gym [00:23] Yeah. I'd probably experiment a bit with two or three options, see which seems to work best. [00:24] yeh [00:25] thanks much [00:25] :-) === r0bby_ is now known as robbyoconnor === wgrant_ is now known as wgrant [08:09] morning [08:11] No, I don't think I'll allow that. [08:14] it has been decreed. [08:14] Well, recreed it. [09:33] hi. I've commited many times before discovering my whoami was wrong. Can I edit the "committer" of previous commits ? [09:34] dont think so unless you use one of those rabasing things that basically create new commits [09:34] "rabasing thing" ? [09:36] rebasing* [09:36] i dont know much about how bzr does it, basically edits the history im guessing [09:37] It's a form of history rewriting [09:37] It's rather rude on anyone else who's seen the branch, but if it's a private one currently with no chance anyone else has seen it it should be fine [09:40] mgrandi, LeoNerd : thanks, I'll try that as it is a private before sending. [09:41] bzr rebase isn't particularly useful in that regard [09:44] what is the easiest way of replaying history? export then import? [09:47] I think so, or shelve + uncommitt [09:49] when I merge a contributor's patch, do I imports all its commits history ? [09:50] rhitier: if it's a bundle, yes [09:50] or if you're merging a branch, anything using merge before commit basically [09:51] isnt bundle naturally created with bzr send ? [09:52] rhitier: yes [09:53] ok. I merged. Should I commit before being able to see history logs of applied patch ? [09:53] rhitier: yep, or you can use e.g. qlog [09:58] I created a branch. I merged the patch. And now the log shows a "Pending Merges". After a commit, contributor's commits appear as a branche of my latest commit. Is that it ? [09:59] (with strange rew numbers, like 50.1.2 ) [10:02] rhitier: roughly [10:03] thanks all. I go on branching/hacking ;-) [13:22] jelmer: ping, I think I need a refresher on getting and building source debs [13:26] jam: sure [13:27] mumble? [13:27] jelmer: sounds good === zyga is now known as zyga-food === zyga-food is now known as zyga === zyga_ is now known as zyga [22:00] Hi guys. Can anyone help me , i need to merge two branches which the data is absolutely identical yet for reasons that blow my mind bzr wont merge as it says it doesn't share a common ancestory. Is there any simple way of doing this without it generating a whole bunch of .moved files in the process? [22:10] cedeon: the branches aren't related as far as bzr is concerned [22:10] cedeon: the files would all have different unique file identifiers [22:11] you can see this by running "bzr ls --show-ids" in the two branches [22:11] so its not like git where they have the file contents hashed? [22:12] is there anyway to force copy they file identifiers? [22:12] from one branch to the other? [22:17] cedeon: when you add a file, you can use "bzr add --file-ids-from " to make it use the same file ids [22:18] cool thanks , i'll give that a try [22:50] I don't think git works the way you think it does either [22:53] oh heh [22:54] don't quite understand how it works, the branches have no ca [22:58] well maybe im going about this the wrong way.. i cant 'add' because i have a lot of history on my branch... basically i have a situation where i have 31 revisions and some guy gave me a bzr repo with six revisions and different file ids. I KNOW that my revision 30 equals his revision 0 yet i cant figure out how to merge these together [22:59] it just seems like this sort of thing should be simple [22:59] nah [23:00] you can bzr-rewrite his on top of yours though [23:00] i can rollback to rev 30 so im at the stage where the file bits are identicle [23:00] how did all the fileids get lost [23:00] i dunno i guess he made a new repo from my files and didn't use my repo [23:01] how do i rewrite his on top of mine? [23:02] i tried merging his and then deleting all the .moved files.. committing but then i have his file ids so i cant merge my 31 back [23:13] cedeon: still there? [23:13] cedeon: I would: [23:13] yeah im here [23:13] 1) create a copy of the branch at the point where the histories are still shared [23:13] check :) [23:13] 2) sync his files over the new copy [23:13] 3) "bzr add --file-ids-from YOURBRANCH" [23:13] oh wait, they have no shared history if you mean bzr history [23:13] 4) remove files that weren't present in his branch [23:14] cedeon: in that case, start with an empty branch [23:14] or actually, revision 30 you were referring to earlier [23:14] (but revision 30 from your branch) [23:14] yeah i've rolled back to rev 30 [23:15] ok i think i get you