Comment 39 for bug 45719

> > If I simply want to inspect
> > previous versions, I wouldn't want "bzr status -V" to list all the files
> > changed between the older revision and the current one.
>
> Why is that a problem?
>
If I actually want to do a revert, I can see that this makes sense.
For update however, I wouldn't want the list of files that I edited to
be overwhelmed by the list of changes between the two revisions.

> > One final comment regarding the behaviour of bzr revert or update when
> > some files have been edited. I would advocate that these files are *not*
> > changed or renamed when doing a "bzr update".  This is what happens with
> > CVS.
>
> No, it's not.  In CVS, the differences between r100 and r95 are applied
> to foo when you update, and if they conflict with your uncommitted
> changes, you get conflict markers in the file.
>
> Bazaar update largely emulates the behaviour of CVS, and it won't change
> to do what you've requested.
>
You're absolutely right. I had forgotten that CVS merges the
differences, and it makes sense that bzr do the same.

> The revert command is the user's explicit intent.  The backup files are
> provided for situations where the user realizes their intent was wrong
> afterwards.
OK. This makes sense also.

Thanks for the help.

Julien