Comment 6 for bug 244115

On Mon, 2008-06-30 at 22:02 +0000, Aaron Bentley wrote:

> > One thing that I think we could tweak to improve matters, is that when
> > this happens (the parent not being propogated), rather than moving the
> > existing directory to NAME.moved, and creating a new NAME with only the
> > merged files in it, we should keep the existing directory as NAME, and
> > create the directory-with-the-missing-id as NAME.conflicts. This would
> > stop the user having to rename them back into place.
>
> The theory has always been that it's easier to revert a change than to
> perform an action. So if only one of THIS and OTHER can have the name
> "libmoku", we give it to the OTHER copy.

In general I agree. However, the user has to take an action no matter
what here - they have two 'NAME' directories, one which we have
synthesised.

I think in the vast majority of instances of this case what people will
want (expressed as bzr commands on top of our _current_ behaviour) is
essentially:
 bzr mv NAME NAME.wrong
 bzr mv NAME.moved NAME
 bzr mv NAME.wrong/* NAME/

-Rob
--
GPG key available at: <http://www.robertcollins.net/keys.txt>.