[rfc] bzr-colo into core

[Alexander Belchenko]

Marco Pantaleoni пишет:
> On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 12:27 PM, John Szakmeister <john at szakmeister.net 
> <mailto:john at szakmeister.net>> wrote:
> 
>     On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 5:52 AM, John Arbash Meinel
>     <john at arbash-meinel.com <mailto:john at arbash-meinel.com>> wrote:
>     [snip]
>      > I know Aaron has mentioned that in his layout, he might move the
>     working
>      > tree, but he is unlikely to move the repository, so absolute paths
>      > actually work better for him.  I do wonder what the breakpoint is.
>      >
>      > IMO, it is pretty clear for colo. If the branch is a subdirectory
>     of the
>      > tree root, then use a relative path. If the branch is outside,
>     then *I*
>      > would say, if it is within 1 or 2 '..' then use relative path.
>     Otherwise
>      > use absolute path.
> 
>     That might be a reasonable alternative.  Although, it does add an
>     extra edge for the user to keep in mind.  You can never be sure that
>     if you move everything whether or not it'll all continue to work,
>     unless you check and see whether it's using relative or absolute
>     paths. :-(
> 
> 
> imho, "bzr status" should report the link type (absolute or relative), 
> and perhaps we could also benefit from an additonal command to move 
> working tree, something like "bzr relocate", that would handle the 
> proper path reference update too.

That could be a good workaround, IMO.