"C. Michael Pilato" <cmpil...@collab.net> writes: > On 04/08/2011 04:48 AM, Philip Martin wrote: >> Not sure I understand. Are you saying that "copy then switch then >> commit" should be the same as "copy then commit then switch"? > > I'm suggesting that "copy A Z; switch Z/D; commit Z" should be the same as > "switch A/D; copy A Z; commit Z".
I still confused: "copy/switch/commit" isn't supported; one cannot switch a copy. So is this just a roundabout way of saying that the original test case, "switch/copy/commit", should not be supported or are you proposing some behaviour that should be supported? > In other words, stop treating a switch > like a local mod. A switch isn't a local mod -- it's a client-only view > option, kinda like a sparse directory is. Or just say, "Sorry, I can't do > that copy, because you won't get the result you might think you'd get." -- Philip
