Recording where branches that are absent are

[John A Meinel]

Robert Collins wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-02-01 at 21:16 -0500, Aaron Bentley wrote:
> 
> 
>> | The .bzr/branch/format file would be different yes, and the fact
> they
>> |  both occupy .bzr/branch/* would have that effect.
> 
>> I think all working trees should specify the location of their branch,
>> even if it's just '.'.  This breaks that regularity.
> 
> Another way of thinking about what I am proposing is that all working
> trees will have their branch object available via
> self.bzrdir.open_branch(). So its extremely regular, requires no working
> tree specific logic, and will work identically with any working tree
> implementation.
> 

...

> Meh, I see it as increasing code regularity, preserving separation and
> leveraging the filesystem structure.
> 
> Impasse - I agree on that.
> 
> Martin, John, your thoughts?
> 
> Rob
> 

I think having Branch be able to determine where it is located, rather
than having WorkingTree do it is a better separation.
So I prefer having ".bzr/branch/branch-location" to having
".bzr/checkout/branch-location".

Robert and I had a big go-around about the meaning of
Branch.open_containing() on IRC, though it settled out at least the
meaning of BzrDir.open_containing().

John
=:->

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 249 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/bazaar/attachments/20060204/1fe9b8b1/attachment.pgp