Richard Lowe wrote:
The thing here is that 'hg pull -u' takes you to the latest (by time)
change.
So whether we gave the center line a real name you could hg update to or
not, it'd still be fairly unusual behaviour as compared to what both
sets of people (TW users, and Hg users) are used to.
I don't see anyway to make mercurial "do the right thing", especially
when "the right thing" is entirely subjective, except keep local
modifications (and even then, I haven't actually looked into what would
be required).
As things stand today, update and pull -u update to the tip, which we've
recognized as being the wrong thing in a repo with multiple active branches.
The page http://www.selenic.com/mercurial/wiki/index.cgi/BranchPlan has the
following item on it:
* if a branch is set, update should update to the tip of the current branch
(I think it really means, update to the "head" of the current branch.) If so,
then this sounds like the right thing. This isn't implemented yet though.
Also, suppose there were something like a default branch name in hgrc. This
would provide a branch name to update to instead of the tip. These would make
development on multiple active branches quite effective, I think. Maybe it's
something we should raise with the Mercurial folks.
s'marks
_______________________________________________
tools-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
