A couple of bugs...

[Martin Pool]

On  2 Mar 2006, Aaron Bentley <aaron.bentley at utoronto.ca> wrote:
> Erik Bågfors wrote:
> > 1) bzr branch brings over the working tree of the other branch.
> 
> Robert Collins considers this a feature.  I don't.  He said at least one
> person was confused that 'branch' *didn't* bring over uncommitted
> modifications.  So you're my counterexample.

The fact that users are confused by X does not necessarily mean one
should implement ~X. :-)

> What do other people think?  Should 'branch' copy uncommitted modifications?

Personally I think it should branch from the last commmitted revision,
and ignore the working tree.  As others have observed, we would not be
copying ignored or unknown files so it's not really different to -a.  I
suppose an option to clone the working tree would be OK but I don't
think it's a priority.

This was the previous behaviour and I think we should go back to it.  We
should also be a bit more careful about changing user-visible behaviour
that's not wrong but just arguable -- diff prefixes are a similar case.

-- 
Martin
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 191 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/bazaar/attachments/20060303/d56e31d7/attachment.pgp