Ok, thanks for considering it.

Eliot, I already need to make a patch for fixing non-FileBased
repositories so rather than collide with two versions I can go ahead
and remove the preference.

I'll update the comment in MCVersionName as well... might need help on
that but I'll tap on Berts shoulder if I do..



On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 1:22 PM, Bert Freudenberg <bert at freudenbergs.de> wrote:
> On 09.08.2012, at 19:53, Chris Muller wrote:
>
>> Before you spend time -- what think you (and Bert) of the suggestion
>> to have branches simply be in their own repository (its own directory
>> of the name of the branch)?  I know it's not how you do it today, but
>> please just imagine it in terms of the UI -- would it work?  Ok, there
>> might be issues diffing versions *between* branches -- is that a
>> frequent requirement?  Actually, they might both be in your
>> package-cache so may be could be diff'd there?
>
>
> It's always interesting to come up with alternatives. But I have given it a couple minutes of thought and come to the conclusion that no, branches cannot be meaningfully emulated by having multiple repositories. Encoding the branch in the version name is simple and works well.
>
> - Bert -
>
>
>