> On Wed, 2010-10-06 at 20:59 +0000, John A Meinel wrote:
>> some comments, I didn't look closely:
>>
>> 1) Isn't 'n' already known? (natty). I realize you can't push to it, but might as well have it for future.
> Would it perhaps be possible to have a set of shortcuts available but
> not limit the possible names in general? I can imagine a dictionary like
> this:
> k: karmic,
> l: lucid,
> m: maverick
> That way it will still be possible to check out ubuntu:natty/foo when
> natty is opened and you're using an older version of bzr, you just won't
> be able to use ubuntu:n/foo. It also means we don't have to get the list
> of hardcoded names in bzr completely right.
+1
Also, how would this interact with drives on windows ? Should we use two
letters shortcuts instead ?
>>>>> Jelmer Vernooij <email address hidden> writes:
> On Wed, 2010-10-06 at 20:59 +0000, John A Meinel wrote:
>> some comments, I didn't look closely:
>>
>> 1) Isn't 'n' already known? (natty). I realize you can't push to it, but might as well have it for future.
> Would it perhaps be possible to have a set of shortcuts available but
> not limit the possible names in general? I can imagine a dictionary like
> this:
> k: karmic,
> l: lucid,
> m: maverick
> That way it will still be possible to check out ubuntu:natty/foo when
> natty is opened and you're using an older version of bzr, you just won't
> be able to use ubuntu:n/foo. It also means we don't have to get the list
> of hardcoded names in bzr completely right.
+1
Also, how would this interact with drives on windows ? Should we use two
letters shortcuts instead ?
ka: karmic,
lu: lucid,
etc