sftp oddities

[Johan Rydberg]

John Arbash Meinel <john at arbash-meinel.com> writes:

> To avoid future confusion, we also added a 'no-working-tree' file, which
> indicated this branch did not have a working tree.

Ok.  I was just confused since I could not figure out a way to detect
the presence of a working tree.  The working tree can after all be a
empty tree.  Kinda hard to detect that :)

> Which implies using a special directory (like .bzr, or maybe _bzr),
> which would then be forbidden as a path element, since we are already
> using it. We still could add a "no-working-tree" entry.

Yes. I like the idea of still having .bzr.

> The nice thing about leaving the .bzr in, is that it means fewer changes
> to the current codebase, and it means that people can setup things that
> look like repositories (minus shared storage) with regular branches.

Maybe we could define a stand-alone branch as a .bzr and a .repository
in the same directory?

~j