On 04/08/2011 08:39 AM, Philip Martin wrote: > "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?
It's apparently a roundabout way of saying that I'm a knucklehead! Sorry, Philip -- I clearly wasn't thinking fully through this. My general concern remains, of course, that it seems weird (to me) for a switch to be treated as a local mod in that it can have some affect on the results of a copy operation. But we obviously have precedent for supporting committed copies of deeply switched things, so perhaps this isn't the best use of our time right now. -- C. Michael Pilato <cmpil...@collab.net> CollabNet <> www.collab.net <> Distributed Development On Demand
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
