From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net>
In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 22 May 2014 12:41:05 +0200."
	<CAEAzY39-Q_j0uo5qRVL2E-O8mYVtzr2R-GTGOU-xfx5C=xoG1A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJSxfmJRpLxjU3HEOjJCBqzVc5wUoOBxc=uJhn41oOxA3a5yVQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAEAzY39-Q_j0uo5qRVL2E-O8mYVtzr2R-GTGOU-xfx5C=xoG1A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 22 May 2014 12:46:42 -0700
From: Bakul Shah <bakul@bitblocks.com>
Message-Id: <20140522194642.8709EB82A@mail.bitblocks.com>
Subject: Re: [9fans] hgfs
Topicbox-Message-UUID: eee83da0-ead8-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

On Thu, 22 May 2014 12:41:05 +0200 =?UTF-8?B?QXJhbSBIxIN2xINybmVhbnU=?= <aram.h@mgk.ro> wrote:
>
> What would be the point of this? Once you have a version (revision)
> you can just bind the subtree where you want it. I don't see the
> point in having this special switching code inside hgfs. Plan 9
> provides the necessary functionality.

I agree on this specific point.

If I am working on branch A and I want to switch to B, git
forces me to commit or "stash" my changes. So even after
gadzillion lines of code it still doesn't do the right thing.
A tool should not force singlethreading on me.  And hg is no
better in this regard.  This limitation need not exist on
plan9.