Comment 2 for bug 191466

Hello,

Yes I eventually tried bzr revert after asking someone how to update my file. svn revert missing_file does indeed work.

I mostly use the commands update, commit, and add. I find with svn I can get away with 99% of operations with those three commands without having to consult help.

Making update act more like svn for missing files does a few of things:
1)- makes it more familiar for svn users.
2)- requires one less command to be memorized.
3)- updates the "tree to have the latest code committed to its branch".

By not updating the tree to have the latest code committed to the branch, I think bzr update is buggy - because the tree is missing files.

I guess it's different behavior is valid - just different to svn. I think the difference should at least be documented, and to improve the ui - at least a message explaining how to update the file should be printed. Perhaps a message saying that the file has been removed locally, and letting them know how to get the current version back.

"bzr update missing_file" has one commonly expected behavior of updating the file - which bzr currently doesn't account for.

Update takes an optional second argument (currently just a directory). I think it should also apply to files for the reasons above.

cheers,

This is the help for bzr update for reference:
"""
bzr --help update
Purpose: Update a tree to have the latest code committed to its branch.
Usage: bzr update [DIR]

Options:
  -v, --verbose Display more information.
  -q, --quiet Only display errors and warnings.
  -h, --help Show help message.

Description:
  This will perform a merge into the working tree, and may generate
  conflicts. If you have any local changes, you will still
  need to commit them after the update for the update to be complete.

  If you want to discard your local changes, you can just do a
  'bzr revert' instead of 'bzr commit' after the update.
"""