On 04/08/2011 08:39 AM, Philip Martin wrote:
> "C. Michael Pilato" <cmpilato_at_collab.net> writes:
>> On 04/08/2011 04:48 AM, Philip Martin wrote:
>>> Not sure I understand. Are you saying that "copy then switch then
>>> commit" should be the same as "copy then commit then switch"?
>> I'm suggesting that "copy A Z; switch Z/D; commit Z" should be the same as
>> "switch A/D; copy A Z; commit Z".
> I still confused: "copy/switch/commit" isn't supported; one cannot
> switch a copy. So is this just a roundabout way of saying that the
> original test case, "switch/copy/commit", should not be supported or are
> you proposing some behaviour that should be supported?
It's apparently a roundabout way of saying that I'm a knucklehead! Sorry,
Philip -- I clearly wasn't thinking fully through this. My general concern
remains, of course, that it seems weird (to me) for a switch to be treated
as a local mod in that it can have some affect on the results of a copy
operation. But we obviously have precedent for supporting committed copies
of deeply switched things, so perhaps this isn't the best use of our time
C. Michael Pilato <cmpilato_at_collab.net>
CollabNet <> www.collab.net <> Distributed Development On Demand
Received on 2011-04-08 15:38:34 CEST