On Wed, 17 Jan 2007, Malcolm Rowe wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 17, 2007 at 04:00:51PM -0600, Karl Fogel wrote:
> > To Justin: my sense is that most people are ready to give up on
> > severable & relocatable (with just 'mv') working copies now, the
> > costs are starting to outweigh the benefits. But I agree, we don't
> > need to open that can of worms right now.
> Implicitly severable, yes, but I think people want explicitly severable
> working copies. Portable (or implicitly movable) working copies seem
> more important (I use one almost every time I commit, for example).
Implicitly severable WCs have to go. Especially after implementing
Merge Tracking, I am convinced that we need centralized meta data
storage for the WC (in the spirit of Dave Anderson's "Another working
copy library" email). We can certainly provide an explicit
sub-command to break off portions of the WC, maintaining the feature
desired by Justin.
Received on Fri Jan 19 00:10:18 2007
- application/pgp-signature attachment: stored