workingtree and branch

[Robert Collins]

On Sun, 2005-10-16 at 09:43 -0500, John Arbash Meinel wrote:

> I'm not sure about the WorkingTree.open(), but I think
> WorkingTree(branch) makes sense.

ok.

> I still think Branch is the class things revolve around, because it
> defines the ancestry, what files are versioned, etc. And because we
> could easily have branches without working trees, though a working tree
> without a branch is just a regular set of files.

Right. But our commit logic is based around a working tree, not a branch
- it punts the data it generates to the branch as it completes :).

> I'm curious, though. Would that mean that the .bzr/inventory (not
> inventory.weave) would then be handled just by WorkingTree?

That would make sense to me, as that file is meaningless when you do not
have a WorkingTree, ditto pending-merges.

Rob

-- 
GPG key available at: <http://www.robertcollins.net/keys.txt>.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/bazaar/attachments/20051017/3d748ba6/attachment.pgp