On 11.07.2017 10:53, Julian Foad wrote:
> Thanks for your suggestion, Nathan.
> Nathan Hartman wrote:
>> [...] What if, instead of just a pristine copy, it actually created a
>> private local repository. Revision 1 of this repository would be the
>> pristine copy. [...] if you type some other command instead of
>> commit, or maybe prepend the word "local" or something, the commit
>> would go into the local repository [...] Shelving, stashing, etc.,
>> all become local operations against this local souped up pristine
>> copy replacement.
> That is exactly what I was thinking about when I wrote "Option 3...
> Checkpoints are commits in a local repository embedded in the WC"
> towards the end of that document. My feeling is that both the amount
> of effort required just to get that far, and the explosion of further
> possibilities it would open up, make it too heavy-weight for my
> current project, but I would definitely like to explore that
> possibility further.
Ben (Reser) and I discussed this to death at one of the hackathons. It
turns out that checkpoints / local commits are, while not a
pre-requisite, definitely a logical first step on the road to stashes
and local branches. We even had a pretty good architectural model and UI
feature list written down ... I wonder where that's gone now.
The problem we encountered at the time is that the current working copy
schema is too limited to implement them effectively; it needs another
dimension of change tracking.
Received on 2017-07-12 00:45:05 CEST