On Sun, Mar 13, 2022 at 3:32 AM Johan Corveleyn <jcor...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 11, 2022 at 9:17 PM Nathan Hartman <hartman.nat...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > If possible and not overly burdensome, I think it would be a good > > thing to keep the "restore" functionality for the following reasons: > [snip] > > I agree. I know about the restore feature too, and am used to it. > Also, I think it would be a mistake to create different behaviour > between "normal (pristine-full)" and "pristines-on-demand" working > copies.
I have also used this feature of update before. What still feels weird is that the feature does not seem relevant to the situation. The file in the WC is NOT missing in this scenario so there is no file to restore. The pristine file is the one that is missing and it is just not clear why the WC code would even be looking for this scenario. Anyway, thanks for taking the time to explain it and I understand that despite my confusion and questions it is a difficult problem to solve. Mark
