Re: Incorrect behaviour on wc copy when using checkout/update --depth

David Glasser wrote:
> On Jan 14, 2008 10:17 AM, C. Michael Pilato <cmpilato_at_collab.net> wrote:
>> I think the copies should "go deep" even if their working copy
>> representations are not. This would greatly facilitate the reorganization
>> of large directories (tags, branches, etc.) without having to have those
>> things fleshed out on local disk in full.
>
> I was mostly sure before, but you've got me convinced.
>
> --dave
>

Well, suppose I was to implement support for my suggested --retain-depth
option, to add this capability. Would such a patch be acceptable,
assuming it works as advertised?

-- 
Chris Rose
Developer    Planet Consulting Group
(780) 577-8433
crose_at_planetci.com