On Tue, Jan 08, 2013 at 01:22:42PM +0100, Johan Corveleyn wrote: > Then let's say +0. I'd like it even better if this could be handled > correctly with move-tracking, but I can't help in any meaningful way > myself with that (and I rather agree that we shouldn't postpone > releasing for too long, and keep nice things from our users), so I'll > thankfully accept any working solution you guys (anyone) can implement > in a reasonable timeframe :-).
What do you hope to achieve, in terms of practical use cases, by tracking moves across disjoint working copies? Do you want to enforce that both working copies need to be committed together, so that the move happens as a copy+delete in a single revision? Or are you thinking about the case where an update or merge acts on a local move, and where this action conflicts? Would you expect to be able to resolve conflicts across disjoint working copies??? Or anything else?
