Getting rid of RootEntry?

[Martin Pool]

On 16 Jan 2006, Aaron Bentley <aaron.bentley at utoronto.ca> wrote:
> John A Meinel wrote:

> > We may want #3 anyway, but I'm okay with #1 for now.
> 
> I know where you're coming from.  In some ways, it's nicer to permit
> type changes, but it does introduce a whole bunch of new edge cases.
> I'll note that the TreeTransform code does handle type changes, because
> revert must be able to revert a type change.

Right, for example it would be a clean way to get nice user behaviour
when a file is replaced by a symlink of the same name.  Not allowing
files to change type seems to imply that at least internally there will
be an add & remove operation.  But as you say it does introduce more
edge cases and so room for bugs.

-- 
Martin
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/bazaar/attachments/20060118/7b229694/attachment.pgp