> I think moving them into a top-level directory is fine. I'd like
> the patch for this to abstract the handling of them so that we can
> later add the others.
What do you mean by others ?
>> 0 is not appropriate as the problem may occur during a pull or a
>> switch (the infamous .pyc problem).
> I think it's appropriate [to give you conflicts on the deletion]:
> you can already get other kinds of conflicts on pull or switch.
Oh, I don't dispute that, I was talking about breaking the natural flow
by creating what could be considered as spruious conflicts, if there are
othe conflicts, they will still be detected.
> The main thing we have to do there is make sure deleting the
> directory is treated as implicit resolution, because it is not at
> present.
Right, I consider that to be a different bug (see bug #344013, bug
#138803, bug #287979, etc). If you think I've high jacked this one I can
create a new one.
>>>>> Martin Pool <email address hidden> writes:
> I think moving them into a top-level directory is fine. I'd like
> the patch for this to abstract the handling of them so that we can
> later add the others.
What do you mean by others ?
>> 0 is not appropriate as the problem may occur during a pull or a
>> switch (the infamous .pyc problem).
> I think it's appropriate [to give you conflicts on the deletion]:
> you can already get other kinds of conflicts on pull or switch.
Oh, I don't dispute that, I was talking about breaking the natural flow
by creating what could be considered as spruious conflicts, if there are
othe conflicts, they will still be detected.
> The main thing we have to do there is make sure deleting the
> directory is treated as implicit resolution, because it is not at
> present.
Right, I consider that to be a different bug (see bug #344013, bug
#138803, bug #287979, etc). If you think I've high jacked this one I can
create a new one.