No.
bzr could trivially do fast-forward too. It's an explicit design
decision to have two separate commands.
They don't exist either with "pull".
The difference between bzr and git is smaller than you think on this
point I believe.
The bzr command "pull" will do a fast-forward if possible, but will
refuse to continue and ask you to create the merge commit with other
commands if necessary.
Same as bzr.
Here, bzr will refuse to pull. It will say "branches have diverged"
and tell you to use merge.
Then, you'll do
$ bzr merge
# optionally "bzr status"
$ bzr commit -m "merged such or such thing"
So, "git pull" seems roughly equivalent to something like
$ bzr pull || (bzr merge; bzr commit -m merge)
Not yet. The "numbers will be changed" is if b pulls, right after.
Then, one other difference is in the UI. bzr shows you commits in a
kind of hierarchical maner, like (fictive example, that's not the real
exact format).
$ bzr log
commiter: upstream@maintainer.com
message:
merged the work on a feature
------
commiter: contributor@site.com
message:
prepared for feature X
------
commiter: contributor@site.com
message:
implemented feature X
------
commiter: contributor@site.com
message:
added testcase for feature X
------
commiter: upstream@maintainer.com
message:
something else
No big difference in the model either, but it probably reveals a
different vision of what "history" means.
--
Matthieu
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html