© 2004
Canonical Ltd.
•
Terms of use
•
Data privacy
•
Contact Launchpad Support
•
Blog
•
Careers
•
System status
•
2eb648a
demo site
(Get the code!)
i agree. i'm the author of a GUI front-end for various revision control systems, and the current bzr(1) behavior makes my life more difficult. my plan (which i haven't yet got round to) is to explicitly ask the user how to interpret a missing file. i think that front ends are the right place to address this, rather than in the core tools.
if you're concerned about changing existing behavior, a flag that would let front end authors like me explicitly ask for the Subversion-like behavior would be fine, i think. anyone using the underlying tools too needs to understand potential interactions (like people using stdio and C++'s iostreams in the same program), even if in an ideal world there would be such conflicts.
anyway, i know this isn't a democracy, but having Subversion-like behavior would get my vote if it were ;-)
i don't think i have an opinion on whether "bzr remove" should delete the working copy or not. i don't think it makes any real difference either way. i reserve the right to change my mind, though, just in case!