workingtree and branch

[Martin Pool]

On 16/10/05, Robert Collins <robertc at robertcollins.net> wrote:
> I think one reason the branch interface is overly large is that its
> supporting both workingtree and branch related functions.
>
> I'd like to propose we split this by giving working tree the functions
> related to it - rename, move, move_one, revert etc.

Yes, I'd like to do this too.

> This means a workingtree needs to know about its branch, so I further
> suggest that workingtrees have a .branch attribute, and branch loses the
> ability to construct a working tree - this switches the who-owns what
> responsibility.

Let's leave this in for the moment, at least as a stub.

--
Martin