RFC, poke at 'shallow' branches

[Robert Collins]

On Fri, 2010-02-05 at 16:15 +1000, Ian Clatworthy wrote:
> 
> > 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)
> 
> I feel connecting when the data is already local violates the
> Principle
> of Least Surprise. Many users report bugs and/or grumble on IRC when
> they realise this is happening.
> 
> I suspect part of the issue is the bound-branch vs
> heavyweight-checkout
> conceptual model debate. When *I* think about a bound branch, I expect
> 95% of operations to be local and for a small number (commit, tag,
> others?) to contact the remote site. When I think about a checkout,
> contacting the associated branch is a reasonable choice more often.
> Even
> so, I'd err against doing it if the data was already local. 

'status' wants to report on 'out of date with the branch', 'log' wants
branch.last_revision() -> lazy connecting will still connect very often
with a 'checkout' model - lightweight or heavy, if the user model of a
checkout is preserved.

Branches with a push-trigger-to-another-branch are potentially
different, sure.

-Rob


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/bazaar/attachments/20100205/4775a81b/attachment.pgp