RFC: bzr rm is hard to use

[Robert Collins]

On Fri, 2009-07-17 at 06:39 +0200, Marius Kruger wrote:
> 2009/7/16 Martin Pool <mbp at canonical.com>
>         Those rules sound ok to me. I prefer them to Ian's proposal
>         because they're more similar to what merging the revision will
>         produce. 
>         
>         I think the only change is in how modified files are handled
>         but it's clearer to describe the final state, as you did, not
>         the delta.
>         
>         Deletion of unclean directories could be better to but that
>         can be done separately and anyhow falls under "like revert".
>         
>         Maybe file a bug to record the apparent consensus? 
>         
> I filed a blueprint, I hope its the correct use of it since its my
> first dabble with blueprints:
> https://blueprints.launchpad.net/bzr/+spec/bzr-rm-behaviour
> I documented what looked to me like the 'apparent consensus', but feel
> free to comment or update it.

Bugs are much more convenient than blueprints at the moment - there is
some interesting discussion on launchpad-users about blueprints vs bugs.
Anyhow, the consensus Martin refers to is your 'Option 1'.

-Rob

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/bazaar/attachments/20090717/254e8930/attachment.pgp