[Monotone-devel] Re: checkout with no branch cert [was re: git fast-export]

[Felipe Contreras]

On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 7:53 AM, Derek Scherger <address@hidden> wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 10:41 PM, Derek Scherger <address@hidden>
> wrote:
>>
>> My impression at the moment is that the exported history does have correct
>> permissions because it agrees with a monotone checkout (which requires
>> addition of a branch cert) of the same revision. It seems that there are two
>> different problems with monotone here (1) checkout is not possible for
>> revisions that have no branch certs and (2) update doesn't always produce
>> correct execute permissions.
>
> As  mentioned in my previous email, I think (2) is  now fixed and I'm
> wondering how we want to approach (1).
>
> It seems like we should probably just remove the checks for a branch option
> from the places that don't actually need it, in particular setup and
> checkout come to mind but there may be others. This would essentially delay
> aborting on a pending problem until it actually becomes a real problem. It
> would also prevent the possibility of a problem from being a real problem
> itself, as in the case of checkout.
>
> Another way of thinking about this is that, at the moment, a workspace is
> almost required to have a branch option and maybe it doesn't really need
> one. Various operations in that workspace will need a branch option, but
> that is their problem, not the workspace's.

Perhaps it helps to think about it in a different way; it is possible
to have commits with no branch, currently it's not possible to
checkout those commits, therefore the current behavior is broken.

I think your proposed solution makes sense (delay the blockage until
it's a real problem). Many people checkout the source code and don't
really commit anything... Why would they care if the checkout is in
two branches? Why are they forced to choose one?

>From any point of view I think your idea is good :)

-- 
Felipe Contreras