What is the purpose of `rmbranch` command?

[Jelmer Vernooij]

On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 02:13:39PM +0200, John Arbash Meinel wrote:
> >> I don't think Alexander asked for a separate command. Instead,
> >> AIUI, his point is that it makes little sense to remove the
> >> branch and leave an otherwise *empty* control directory (not to
> >> mention other possible bugs when trying to interact with this
> >> empty directory).
> > This isn't always the case though - there can be other colocated 
> > branches, a repository or a working tree. We have no way to remove
> > a repository for example.
> > 
> > As far as I understand this would unversion the current directory,
> > which would seem a bit odd. Am I misunderstanding something?
> bzr branch --no-tree lp:bzr target
> bzr rmbranch target
> 
> Arguably, there should be no 'target/' directory left. Certainly that
> is what people expect.
What Vincent and Alexander are arguing is that in that case the
target/ directory should be kept around - it still contains a
repository.

I don't like the idea of automatically removing the control directory
in the case when only .bzr/branch exists (and no .bzr/checkout or
.bzr/repository) since it makes the behaviour of "bzr rmbranch"
unpredictable.

Cheers,

Jelmer