[MERGE] Re: A couple of bugs...

[Martin Pool]

On  4 Mar 2006, Robert Collins <robertc at robertcollins.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 2006-03-03 at 18:25 +1100, Martin Pool wrote:
> > 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.
> ...

+1

-- 
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/20060306/99c3a116/attachment.pgp