[RFC] Separating last-revision from parents

[Martin Pool]

On  4 Feb 2007, Robert Collins <robertc at robertcollins.net> wrote:
> The current behaviour of update and revert is in my mind 'correct' -
> that is, we can probably improve it, buts its doing what I intended.
> 
> I wanted the following to hold true for any tree:
>  'bzr update && bzr revert && bzr info -> no missing revisions, no local
> edits, no new local commits. 
>    That is, for a regular branch, it gets you to the tip, for a
> lightweight checkout, it gets you to the tip of the pointed-at-branch,
> and for a heavyweight branch it gets the local branch reset to the
> master.

+1 on that, except that we should give you a more prominent warning that
not just your uncommitted changes but all your local work would be lost,
and perhaps require either keyboard confirmation (as for uncommit) or
confirmation through a command line option.

It might be good if revert had something like a mini-repository in the
checkout where it could store the inventory and texts that were being
removed, to support unrevert.

-- 
Martin