`bzr add --no-recurse` behavior

[Algis Kabaila]

On Sunday 08 November 2009 12:24:16 Alexander Belchenko wrote:
> John Arbash Meinel пишет:
> > Alexander Belchenko wrote:
> >> I want to check is the following behavior is by design rather than bug.
> >> So `add --no-recurse` will add only explicitly named files?
> >>
> >> I found this accidentally while debugging qbzr.
> >
> > I'm not 100% sure, but you might try:
> >
> > mkdir baz
> > cd baz
> > bzr add --dry-run --no-recurse
> >
> > My guess is that it will only add explicitly named files, but that if
> > nothing is supplied "." is considered to be supplied.
>
> Yes:
>
> C:\Temp\3>mkdir foo
>
> C:\Temp\3\foo>bzr add --no-recurse
> adding foo
>
> C:\Temp\3>bzr st
> added:
>   foo/
> unknown:
>   bar
"recurse" usually means that the directory tree is not gone into (in other 
words, is not seen).
 
ak at primo:~/temp/3$ mkdir -p foo/charlie/brown/famous/detective
ak at primo:~/temp/3$ bzr add foo --no-recurse
adding foo
ak at primo:~/temp/3$ bzr st
added:
  foo/
unknown:
  foo/charlie/
ak at primo:~/temp/3$ bzr add .
adding foo/charlie
adding foo/charlie/brown
adding foo/charlie/brown/famous
adding foo/charlie/brown/famous/detective
ak at primo:~/temp/3$

When --no-recurse is specified, it just does not get inside the foo and down 
the directory tree (tree being upside down type of tree, with charlie being 
below foo, brown being below charlie etc.)

When --no-recurse is *not* specified, the tree is followed through.
I guess you have been saying that in different words, or, perhaps, I am 
reapeating it exactly in the same form.

The difference is that I did the example under ubuntu, rather than MS WinXP.
OldAl.

-- 
Algis Kabaila, MEngSc, PhD(Eng)
http://akabaila.pcug.org.au/StructuralAnalysis.pdf