creating checkouts, bound branches and standalone branches from an existing branch

[Erik Bågfors]

2006/2/14, James Blackwell <jblack at merconline.com>:
> On Sat, Feb 11, 2006 at 11:42:41PM +0100, Denys Duchier wrote:
>
> > [in the following, I am deliberately using the command "get" rather than
> > "branch" or "checkout" to avoid confusion with existing/proposed
> > concepts and/or commands.]
>
> (technically, "get" is an alias for "branch". Your point does come through
> though)
>
> > I would propose that:
> >
> >       bzr get --commit=remote       URL PATH
> >         bzr get --commit=local,remote URL PATH
> >         bzr get --commit=local        URL PATH
>
> I propose the following:
> ------------------------
>  bzr branch                   |  Defaults to branch --lightly-bound.
>
>  bzr branch [-c|--checkout]   |  A checkout.

But,,,,,,

here you are not creating a branch, why should we use the branch
command.  Isn't that confusing to users? If it was all called "get"
then I'd be fine with it either being a branch of a checkout. But not
if it's called branch.

>                               |
>  bzr branch [-u|--unbound]    |  unbound branch (with or w/o repo)
>                               |
>  bzr branch [-b|--bound]      |  a fully bound branch. No remote access,
>                               |  no commit. Probably a bit rare
>                               |
>  bzr branch --lightly-bound   |  a lightly bound branch that breaks binding on
>                               |  commit if the remote branch is
>                               |  uncommittable*
>
>  * I can't decide whether this should be a lightly bound branch. One idea
>    that appeals to me is the idea of a branch that decides whether its
>    bound or not based upon the results of the first commit. If the first
>    commit succeeds, then its fully bound. If the first commit fails, then
>    its unbound.

I'm not 100% sure about this one either as I think it can cause
confusion.  I did this, and sometimes what I do is propagated up, and
sometimes not.

>
> With the following aliases:
> ---------------------------
>  checkout & co                | alias for "branch --checkout"
>  get, clone                   | alias for branch
>
>
> With consideration given to:
> --------------------------------
>  bzr rebranch [same options as | Converts a branch from one type to
>                above]          | another, provided the result is possible
>                                  and sane.

That would be really nice.

/Erik