[Fwd: A new user experience]

[Martin Pool]

On 19/10/05, John A Meinel <john at arbash-meinel.com> wrote:
> > The following message was posted to the mercurial list, regarding an
> > unpleasaninitial experience with mercurial. I figured it wouldn't hurt
> > to post it here to be assured that bzr doesn't currently have any
> > "features" like this, and to help all the coders remember to avoid
> > anything like this in the future.
> >
> > I would experiment with this in bzr myself, but alas, I can't run bzr
> > any more. Apparently it now requires breezy, and I'm timidly sticking
> > with hoary for a few more weeks because I can't afford to risk any
> > downtime on this machine right now.

I don't think that's true; I was developing it mainly on hoary until a
few weeks ago.  What goes wrong if you run it on hoary?

> Interesting. To my understanding, bzr does indeed have this same
> performance. "bzr revert" reverts the entire tree back to it's current
> state. And the current state of an uncommitted tree is completely empty.

We should probably make revert not delete newly added files, but only
make them unversioned.  Deleting them is often useful, such as when
backing out of a merge, but perhaps it can be turned on by an option. 
There should also be some kind of unrevert.

Thanks for the reminder,
--
Martin