re 0.15rc3/win32: bug report, suggestion and question

[Aaron Bentley]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

John Arbash Meinel wrote:
> Martin Pool wrote:
>> On 4/1/07, Andrew Voznytsa <andrew.voznytsa at gmail.com> wrote:
>> So you're trying to unbind from the ssh location and bind to a UNC
>> location, and that fails because you can't reach the ssh server?
> 
> He has a lightweight checkout, so bind and unbind don't do anything.

Actually, I'm pretty sure that with a lightweight checkout, bind and
unbind affect the checked-out branch. So

bzr checkout foo bar
cd bar; bzr bind baz

should bind foo to baz.

> I would like to see BranchReference.open() be a proxy, because it would
> also help commands like 'bzr status', since they won't have to connect
> to the remote branch at all.

I'd like to radically revamp lightweight checkouts so that their
branches aren't references at all.  Instead they're Branch6-ish branches
with "use_bound_repo=True".  So they use the bound repo, and they can't
be unbound, but they're otherwise the same as heavyweight checkouts.

> That brings up another question, though. Would we want 'bzr bind' to
> take over the 'bzr switch' ability? The biggest difference (right now)
> is that 'bzr switch' automatically runs 'bzr update'. (Also, 'bzr
> switch' is explicitly hard-coded to not work on heavyweight checkouts).
> 
> Thoughts?

I want bzr update to take on bzr switch functionality.

Aaron
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFGFRoU0F+nu1YWqI0RAmqQAJ9RRqCI2+pXXHFKQPlGyMiAlyWo7gCghqrd
1CY9Jy9kUWJ2IGuhFI5eo48=
=t94L
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----