Re: updated to 1.11.6 (from 1.11.2) now have problems on windows

[Kevin Layer]

Eric Siegerman <address@hidden> wrote:

>> Instead, perhaps it should do something like: "if the specified
>> pathname, together with the usual other criteria (-r, -D, sticky
>> attributes, etc.), selects more than one *revision*, complain".
>> 
>> The existing (I think) test cares about theoretical ambigity; my
>> proposed one cares only about the practical problem -- the
>> impossibility of stuffing two unrelated revisions into one
>> sandbox file.  If an operation isn't trying to do that,
>> forbidding it on theoretical grounds seems pointlessly annoying.

I completely agree.  I hope this is implemented for the next 1.11.x.