Bound branches revisited
Erik Bågfors
zindar at gmail.com
Mon Jan 2 11:39:58 GMT 2006
2006/1/2, Harald Meland <harald.meland at usit.uio.no>:
> [John A Meinel]
>
> > Kevin Smith wrote:
> >> John A Meinel wrote:
> >>> Now the question is, I think binding to B should update the A's working
> >>> directory (same as 'pull').
> >>> But should binding to B update B's working directory? This obviously
> >>> could only happen on the local filesystem right now.
> >>
> >> It strikes me that the word "bind" implies a two-way binding. But if I
> >> understand the feature, binding A to B does not automatically create a
> >> binding in the opposite direction. That is, B has no idea that A has
> >> been bound to it, right? Perhaps using the word "bind" is causing some
> >> confusion. Is there a better term that hints at the asymmetrical nature?
> >
> > If you can think of one, I'd be okay with using it. I don't think that
> > "bind" is terrible, but I can see your point
>
> Is "proxy" any better, as in "a proxied branch" and the command "bzr
> proxy URL"?
I think too many people think of network proxies with that name.
I think bind is fine, but am also open to other suggestions.
/Erik
More information about the bazaar
mailing list