Are read-only stores a bug?

[Martin Pool]

On 19 Jun 2005, Aaron Bentley <aaron.bentley at utoronto.ca> wrote:

> But I can't use rm -R to delete them.  Not sanely anyway, because there
> are two readonly files for each revision, and one readonly file for
> every set of contents a file's ever had.  So rm -Rf it is.
> 
> But rm -Rf is a really bad thing to commit to muscle memory.  Only a few
> commands come to mind as more dangerous (dd for example).

That's a good point, and I've run into the same thing.  I had made the
store entries readonly because I was thinking about hardlinking them
into the tree, but that's not done now, and probably not likely to
happen soon.  So it's probably better not to make them so.

> If we wanted to keep the stores readonly, I suppose we could have a "bzr
> unbranch" command that would only delete bzr branches.

Maybe it could check that all the changes have been merged
(somewhere?) and there's nothing uncommitted or unknown.

-- 
Martin