redirected and shared working trees
James Blackwell
jblack at merconline.com
Mon Jan 23 02:29:35 GMT 2006
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 12:06:01PM -0600, John A Meinel wrote:
> Aaron Bentley wrote:
> > John A Meinel wrote:
> >>> So while a standalone branch *might* still have a working tree, you
> >>> could still have a second working tree which references it.
> >
> > My definition of a standalone branch *requires* that it contain a
> > working tree. I'd rather use a different term for tree-less branches
> > that contain both repository and brach, but not checkout.
> >
> > Aaron
>
> I have no problem with that. I was thinking it might be a 'standalone
> branch without working tree'. But I don't care about the terminology.
>
> We are starting to have a few too many terms because of the
> combinatorial problem. (w/ w/o working tree, shared repository, etc).
> So it might be nice to break things down into their individual
> components, and describe branches by what pieces they have. That is
> certainly the way we are coding it, it just isn't how we describe it.
The BzrGlossary could use some work in this regard. For example, "working
tree" states that the associated RCS data is present.
--
My home page: <a href="http://jblack.linuxguru.net">James Blackwell</a>
Gnupg 06357400 F-print AAE4 8C76 58DA 5902 761D 247A 8A55 DA73 0635 7400
-------------- 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/20060122/288adf4d/attachment.pgp
More information about the bazaar
mailing list