When manually resolving directory conflicts isn't a feature

[Aaron Bentley]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Andrew Bennetts wrote:
> Christophe TROESTLER wrote:
> [...]
>> BTW, why is a script erasing `bzr ignored` files prior to branch
>> switching not fine with you?  (This could be turned into a bzr plugin.)

> This feature already exists: “bzr clean-tree --ignored”.
> 
> Running that before every switch would help workaround this problem, but:
> 
>   a) it shouldn't be necessary,

There is a genuine conflict.  Some users will want the directory and its
contents to be deleted.  Others may want the directory to be deleted and
its contents moved elsewhere.  Others may want the directory to be
unversioned and its contents retained.  Others may want the directory
and its contents to be untouched.

A conflict means that we don't know what to do.

Conflict resolution policies are already loosely coupled to
TreeTransforms-- we have one for checkout, and one that's used for
everything else.  It's easy to imagine letting users configure a policy
that's more suited for their particular project, such as deleting
unversioned children of directories being deleted.

We can also pursue classifying files as "junk", which would be a more
general solution, but would make the user model more complex.

Aaron
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAknbYF4ACgkQ0F+nu1YWqI3P4QCfbEDZTqlqkQnzp/gJaON5BvZI
Q7cAn3fF7+by0AYAL269hhdBcyu6sVqf
=d6cH
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----