Bound branches revisited

[John Arbash Meinel]

Erik Bågfors wrote:
> 2006/1/2, John Arbash Meinel <john at arbash-meinel.com>:
> 

...

>>>
>>>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told "your working tree is now out of date" and B's working tree  is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.
>>
> 
> 
> Does that mean that we have to work in the same way you do in
> mercurial, where you run hg pull, and are totally confused by having
> no changes? :)
> 
> /Erik
> 

No. 'bzr pull' will update working trees if they are available. In fact,
I would think that 'bzr pull' would expect there to be a working tree
for it to update.

If I am in a checkout, with a remote branch, I would expect 'bzr pull',
to go out to the branch, pull in whatever changes, and then come back
and update the working tree, same as it does now.

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/20060102/3cc5d357/attachment.pgp