[Julian Foad] > > * No commitment to mixed-revision working copies. > > That sounds interesting, but I haven't got to grips with what it > really means in terms of user work flows, and in what senses it is an > important functional restriction versus an advantage.
That's one of those features I don't think I'd ever miss if it were absent. I do hear about other people's use cases, of course. > > * Full history of at least one branch is generally stored on clients. I would add: * No commitment to partial working copies. By which I mean both WCs that aren't rooted at the branch root, and sparse WCs. (I don't really use non-rooted WCs, but I do use sparse WCs.) * No commitment to merging only part of a revision. This is another thing I wouldn't miss if it were not available. In other words I'd be ok with getting an error if I tried to merge revisions to a branch that contain changes in a directory missing in my wc. Anyway, I guess I just agree that there are a lot of simplifications they can do over in DVCS-land that we'd be very hard put to match - so trying to achieve feature parity with DVCS on their terms is probably a losing strategy. -- Peter Samuelson | org-tld!p12n!peter | http://p12n.org/
