RFC, poke at 'shallow' branches

[John Arbash Meinel]

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


...

> 
> It might work.  I might expect some amount of fallout, so it would be
> good to do early in 2.2.
> 
> I was wondering if we should tag bugs as 'fallout' so we could later
> count them, if they're a problem introduced by an earlier landing that
> we could have caught with better review or testing.  In a sense all
> bugs that are not feature requests are in this category, yet some seem
> much more like this than others.
> 

At a minimum we would have to fix the 'cannot commit to a stacked
branch' bug.

I wouldn't expect much more fallout than that, as my proposal is to just
create a regular Stacked branch that happens to be pre-seeded with some
local content.

If we wanted it to work nicely, then we would want to figure out how to
not connect on every action (like lightweight checkouts currently do).
Even for stuff like 'status' that has all the needed information locally
(and likely 'diff' could also be purely local under this situation).

I believe Robert has always advocated that lazy connecting will lead to
late-failures. (Better to know as soon as I can't connect, rather than
once I really need it... Or something to that effect)

John
=:->
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Cygwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAktq94MACgkQJdeBCYSNAAPp7QCfYnqIylRoTzmvzaVN1Uplfnck
6yAAoIgoFjw1d6MKQReafDhMIJzjwgM5
=36pw
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----