Robert Collins wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-09-06 at 02:50 +0000, Jamie Wilkinson wrote:
>> Yeah, I didn't realise it was also affected by checkouts, which I
>> don't use.
>> I don't have any ideas on how better to say it. :)
>
> A 'bound branch' *IS* a checkout, which is why we want to eliminate the
> term 'bound branch' - its seriously confusing.
What if the bound branch has no working tree?
Aaron
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Robert Collins wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-09-06 at 02:50 +0000, Jamie Wilkinson wrote:
>> Yeah, I didn't realise it was also affected by checkouts, which I
>> don't use.
>> I don't have any ideas on how better to say it. :)
>
> A 'bound branch' *IS* a checkout, which is why we want to eliminate the
> term 'bound branch' - its seriously confusing.
What if the bound branch has no working tree?
Aaron enigmail. mozdev. org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://
iD8DBQFE/ kWt0F+nu1YWqI0R AoaKAJ46pq7BqAg oTq1cf6KaFihRxz ay7ACdFPhL uOw6S0Nc=
g2CMAPfefCCrOFP
=SSsW
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----