Stacked branching question

[David Ingamells]

I concur with Nicholas. It is my hope that one should be able to do 
everything that moves forward from the branched revno without any need 
for the repositories further down the stack. Thus "commit", "diff" (on 
local changes) and "status" should all work without needing to look 
outside the local branch. Obviously "missing", "diff" with old revno's, 
"log" etc will be crippled without access to the repos below the top of 
the stack.
After all, this enhancement did start off life with the name 'shallow 
branches' and the term 'shallow' does imply a _little_ bit of depth ;-)

> | I would like in the future to have a mode of operation where it either
> | initially fills the local repository with at least a full copy of the
> | previous revision, or can do the commit knowing that the previous
> | copies are there and therefore not storing deltas.  But we don't have
> | that in this release.
> That's a shame - I was hoping it would at least support off-line commits 
> in its initial implementation - that seriously reduces its usefulness 
> (but I understand this is just the first implementation). I just hope 
> that it is something that will be implemented in the not too distant 
> future (1.7?). With off-line commits of stacked branches Bazaar would be 
> the only DVC worth considering  ;-) 
>