Checkouts? Or just light bound branches?

[Aaron Bentley]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

It somewhat bothers me that checkouts and branches both have the concept
of last-revision.  Considering that revision-history is the only concept
that Branches represent, there's a lot of overlap.

It also bothers me that bound branches and checkouts will have the same
behaviour implemented around last-revision: if local last-revision is
not the same as upstream last-revision, fail.

Bound branches and checkouts will serve very similar use cases, so it
seems funny that they use different concepts, and will require different
day-to-day operations.

Until now, I haven't had much idea what to do.  But I just had one:
instead of checkouts, use branches whose repositories are elsewhere.

This works nicely in that we're planning to allow branches to specify
their repository location anyhow.

In terms of the local data location, little changes.

Checkout             Light Bound Branch
========             ==================
- - inventory          - inventory
- - pending-merges     - pending-merges
- - branch location    - repository location
 (implies repository
  location)
- - last-revision      - revision-history

In the repo, you still have a branch that is up-to-date, unless you
slacken the binding.

I voiced a similar suggestion in the "Re: redirected and shared working
trees" thread, but at the time I was talking about unifying the UI of
checkouts and bound branches, not unifying their type.

Any thoughts?

Aaron
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFD2S3Z0F+nu1YWqI0RApqHAJ9PdFzYsdc8aWSnTAKjHcFbJCeiXgCfZjLN
VQGVzVvPjQ0F0YfgqbVfyv4=
=Vk8t
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----