Checkouts? Or just light bound branches?

[Wouter van Heyst]

On Fri, Jan 27, 2006 at 10:15:01AM -0500, Aaron Bentley wrote:

<snip>

> so:
> $ bzr push sftp://aaronbentley.com//home/abentley/myproject
> $ ssh aaronbentley.com
> $ cd myproject
> $ bzr revert
> (local changes lost)
> This is the kind of thing you mean?  (It can be worked around with
> merge, but not conveniently.)
> 
> > Now, we could get around that by removing the ability to push to a
> > remote branch with a direct working tree. So on the server side you
> > would have to have a branch without working tree, and then a light bound
> > branch (checkout) next to it, rather than inside it.
> 
> You'll recall that I'm strongly opposed to the current behaviour.  "If
> there's a tree, we should either update it or fail to push.  An
> out-of-date tree is worse than useless."

If there is any doubt pushing working trees has merit, Wouter Bolsterlee
described his use case on irc a while back, I can probably find that if
needed.

Wouter van Heyst