Bound branches revisited

[Harald Meland]

[John A Meinel]

> Kevin Smith wrote:
>> John A Meinel wrote:
>>> Now the question is, I think binding to B should update the A's working
>>> directory (same as 'pull').
>>> But should binding to B update B's working directory? This obviously
>>> could only happen on the local filesystem right now.
>> 
>> It strikes me that the word "bind" implies a two-way binding. But if I
>> understand the feature, binding A to B does not automatically create a
>> binding in the opposite direction. That is, B has no idea that A has
>> been bound to it, right? Perhaps using the word "bind" is causing some
>> confusion. Is there a better term that hints at the asymmetrical nature?
>
> If you can think of one, I'd be okay with using it. I don't think that
> "bind" is terrible, but I can see your point

Is "proxy" any better, as in "a proxied branch" and the command "bzr
proxy URL"?
-- 
Harald