[19:51] <captine> hi all.  sorry to bug.  tried google.  Am looking to use Bazaar for version control on some text files which are calculation rules used in IBM Cognos TM1.  Just have some questions on whether it will work for my use case
[19:51] <captine> we have 1 windows 2012 server with a directory containing all the rules as well as other application files in the same folder. (This is a dev box).
[19:52] <captine> we have 2 admins that can change rules and edit the files..  Can Bazaar track the changes by users seperately even though both admins connect on RDP to the same windows server nd work in the same folder?
[19:53] <captine> I am an accountant by trade and one of the admins as the tool is a budget and forecast tool... so i am not that clued up on version control systems.  am just wanting a way to manage changes and implementation of them to production
[20:08] <bsd> captine: you can use "bzr commit —author 'Name <email>" to change the author/committer
[20:09] <bsd> It sounds like you just want something to track local changes?
[20:30] <stbatduke> Hello #bzr!!  I am trying to undo a branch update, and move backwards from revision 485 to 484, for example.  When I try this with `bzr revert -r-2` or `bzr revert -r484` nothing seems to happen.  Then if I bzr commit it creates a new revision 286.  I want to step backwards completely, how can I do this?
[20:31] <jelmer> stbatduke: bzr update -r484
[20:32] <stbatduke> thanks jelmer!  though when I now do a `bzr revno` it still says 486
[20:33] <jelmer> stbatduke: it only updates the branch
[20:33] <jelmer> stbatduke: you'll also need to do a "bzr revert" to update the working tree
[20:35] <stbatduke> ok, so I have done the bzr update and bzr revert as follows, but it still says bzr revno is 486: http://pastebin.com/nXQ5tKiV
[20:36] <jelmer> stbatduke: what version of bzr is this?
[20:37] <stbatduke> 2.1.2-1
[20:37] <stbatduke> from debian squeeze 6.0.9 february of 2013
[20:37] <stbatduke> sortry 2014
[20:37] <stbatduke>         500 http://snapshot.debian.org/archive/debian/20140211T040335Z/ squeeze/main i386 Packages
[20:37] <jelmer> stbatduke: that doesn't have this feature in "bzr update" yet I suspect
[20:37] <stbatduke> hmm
[20:38] <stbatduke> any other way do you think to rebert backwards to 484?
[20:38] <jelmer> stbatduke: create a new branch using "bzr branch -r484 ..."
[20:38] <stbatduke> I unfortunately do not have access to apt-get
[20:38] <stbatduke> oh! ok!
[20:38] <stbatduke> Can I do that in the same location, or do I need to move some folders around also?
[20:40] <jelmer> stbatduke: that will create a new branch
[20:40] <stbatduke> ok cool ty
[20:43] <fullermd> Er.  update doesn't update the branch.
[20:43] <fullermd> If you really want to step the branch back and throw away the later stuff, you'd want pull --overwrite.
[20:44] <stbatduke> oh! cool! tyty
[20:44] <fullermd> (or creating and swapping branches around, as above)
[20:44] <jelmer> fullermd: newer versions of update do update the branch I'm pretty sure
[20:44] <fullermd> Only if there's something newer than my bzr.dev   :)
[20:45] <fullermd> (well, aside from the nutsoity of bound branches, but that's a whole different kettle of skunks)
[20:47] <jelmer> oh, right.. that's only in checkouts
[20:49] <fullermd> Even then, I don't think it does anything with the branch with update -r.  Just the gymnastics it does with arg-less and branch syncing.
[20:50] <jelmer> I think my bzr is getting rusty :)
[20:51] <fullermd> That's worth extra giggles if you think back to when some people were advocating it be pronounced "buzzer"   ;)
[20:52] <jelmer> haha