Re: Re: [long] subdirectory restrictions

graydon hoare wrote:
> seconded! this is great news derek, thanks.
>
> >   - Partial updates: These don't just create a fork; they create a 
> > completely
> >     independent new root node in your branch.
> yeah, these are actually very dangerous since they merge so well; I'm happy
> just leaving this disabled for a while.
I've removed the restrictions stuff from update, so for now you get the whole 
enchilada, er manifest.
> >     There's also the standard pragmatic test, that asks which behavior is
> >     easier to emulate given the other... in my proposal, to get a full
> >     version diff, I say
> >       $ monotone diff
> >     and to get a diff of the current directory, I say
> >       $ monotone diff .
I've done this too and it actually simplified the code a bit. The behaviour does 
seem quite nice.
I've also changed the validation in vocab.cc on local_path to allow "." in a 
normalized path which I think should be safe. With this, a path argument with 
the magic number of ../'s from within a working copy normalizes to "." which is 
the root of the working copy. A "restriction" containing the working copy root 
is essentially cancelled and treated as though you had typed no paths at all.
--
Cheers,
Derek