Bound branches revisited

[John Arbash Meinel]

Robey Pointer wrote:
> 
> On 31 Dec 2005, at 9:43, John A Meinel wrote:
> 
>> Kevin Smith wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> To answer the specific question above, I would have to ask what would
>>> happen if I did:
>>>
>>>   Bind A to B
>>>   A commit
>>>
>>> If B's working directory would be updated by the commit, then I would
>>> expect this:
>>>
>>>   A commit
>>>   Bind A to B
>>>
>>> to do the same. If the first case doesn't touch B's working  directory,
>>> then neither should the second case.
>>
>>
>> Yeah, that's what I ended up with. bind/commit/pull all do not update
>> B's working directory. With the current system, there is no way to go
>> into B and get it to merge the changes, so it is a little bit  broken. In
>> the future, WorkingTree will keep track of its current revision, which
>> will help with that.
> 
> 
> Yeah, what I was about to suggest is that when A commits, B's branch  is
> told "your working tree is now out of date" and B's working tree  is
> turned into a checkout.  Is that basically what you're saying? :)   (I
> haven't been following the working-tree threads closely.)
> 
> robey

In the future, all working trees will effectively be checkouts. Just
with the branch information in the same place. I think it is generally
simpler to work that way.

John
=:->

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 256 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/bazaar/attachments/20060102/63127c5f/attachment.pgp