[merge] robert, aaron, daniel

[John A Meinel]

Matthieu Moy wrote:
> John A Meinel <john at arbash-meinel.com> writes:
> 
>> Other than potentially changing .bzr into _bzr I think this is a nice
>> layout. We certainly discussed many time what files go with what
>> fundamental concept, and this would make it explicit.
> 
> I like it too. If you go for it, I suggest making _bzr the default
> instead of .bzr/, because this hidden .bzr/ is _really_ confusing when
> the branch doesn't have a working tree (at first glance, you see an
> empty directory, both with apache listing directories and common file
> managers).
> 
> Also, this would allow the working directory to refer to a revision
> which is not the head. Currently, if I do a push to a branch which has
> a working directory, with, say, a minor manual change, then after the
> push, "bzr diff" in that branch will show the manual change, plus the
> reverse of the patch that the push introduced, since the diff is done
> against the head. In this situation, you have no easy way to recover
> your manual change: commiting will revert the push, and revert will
> also revert the manual change. If the working tree could say "my
> reference is revid:XXXX in this branch", then we could imagine an
> "update" command to update the working directory, keeping the manual
> change intact.
> 

That can be done just by keeping that information underneath the
.bzr/checkout directory. It is needed in the future when we have real
checkouts anyway.

And then "bzr push" wouldn't affect that, unless it actually updates the
checkout.
Which I think fixes your problem.

John
=:->


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 249 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/bazaar/attachments/20051117/2e69c66f/attachment.pgp