A couple of bugs...

[Michael Ellerman]

On 3/3/06, Matthew Hannigan <mlh at zip.com.au> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 02, 2006 at 04:15:13PM -0500, Aaron Bentley wrote:
> > What do other people think?  Should 'branch' copy uncommitted modifications?
>
> Perhaps neither, by default.  I don't really have good sense
> that either wouldn't surprise some people some of the time.
> I guess include uncommitted is most like rsync or cp -a
> which I understand should be equivalent.
>
> Perhaps insist that the user tell bzr which:
> -include-uncommitted or --no-include-uncommmitted

Yuck.

:)