2008/12/13 Martin Pool <<a href="mailto:mbp@canonical.com">mbp@canonical.com</a>> <div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"> Getting rid of them would mean we could still have checkouts, but committing to a checkout would always go into its branch, whether that's on the same machine or elsewhere.  So this would mean checkouts of a remote branch would only really work if you had access to the server, much like in svn, though you would be able to do wt-only operations with no connection. We wouldn't need the four-way merge of wt-basis, wt, local branch, remote branch, that can currently happen in updates. </blockquote></div>Then you'd also have to remove unbind (because you can unbind, commit, bind) I just think we should refuse if there are changes in wt and local branch, forcing people to do another commit --local to have a clean working tree before updating (like merge). In this way we protect the user from accidentally messing things up, and we don't loose functionality.