>
> The NEWS entry ought to explain what an orphan is
Done
>
> +orphaning_registry = registry.Registry()
> +orphaning_registry.register('conflict', refuse_orphan,
> + 'Never create orphans.')
> +orphaning_registry.register('move', move_orphan,
> + 'Move orphans into the bzr-orphans directory.')
> +orphaning_registry._set_default_key('conflict')
>
> I think in explaining 'conflict' it's not so much never create them - the
> transform situtation forces the existence of orphans. Rather, we'll leave
> them in place and mark the directory conflicted.
Fixed.
> You have a comma in 'locations,conf'.
Fixed.
>
> Won't checking this here mean that you get one warning per orphaned file?
Yes, but only if the user set a wrong value so I think it's ok.
> Perhaps not necessarily a big deal but it suggests you should check this
> somewhere earlier, and then hold onto the handler?
That would be overkill just avoid multiple valid warnings that the user should fixed.
>
> otherwise I think this is ok. Perhaps we should file some followon bugs.
>
I think we have some for junk/precious handling no ?
> I might like a 'just kill them' policy.
That's what junk file handling should render useless.
> Perhaps there should be user docs for this?
Added in bzrlib/ help_topics/ en/conflict- types.txt
>
> The NEWS entry ought to explain what an orphan is
Done
> registry. register( 'conflict' , refuse_orphan, registry. register( 'move', move_orphan, registry. _set_default_ key('conflict' )
> +orphaning_registry = registry.Registry()
> +orphaning_
> + 'Never create orphans.')
> +orphaning_
> + 'Move orphans into the bzr-orphans directory.')
> +orphaning_
>
> I think in explaining 'conflict' it's not so much never create them - the
> transform situtation forces the existence of orphans. Rather, we'll leave
> them in place and mark the directory conflicted.
Fixed.
> You have a comma in 'locations,conf'.
Fixed.
>
> Won't checking this here mean that you get one warning per orphaned file?
Yes, but only if the user set a wrong value so I think it's ok.
> Perhaps not necessarily a big deal but it suggests you should check this
> somewhere earlier, and then hold onto the handler?
That would be overkill just avoid multiple valid warnings that the user should fixed.
>
> otherwise I think this is ok. Perhaps we should file some followon bugs.
>
I think we have some for junk/precious handling no ?
> I might like a 'just kill them' policy.
That's what junk file handling should render useless.
I'll land with the fixes mentioned above.