On Sat, Aug 21, 2010 at 6:48 PM, Tony Mechelynck wrote:
> On 18/08/10 14:49, Xavier de Gaye wrote:
>>
>> Actually, having multiple heads in the same branch may be considered
>> as not a problem. When we have local changes, after pulling from the
>> official repository, in order to merge the new official changesets
>> into our own local changes, we now have to run (where<highest
>> revision number> is given by 'hg heads' for example):
>>
>> hg merge -r<highest revision number>
>>
>> instead of previously with only one head:
>>
>> hg merge
>>
>
> Also, with multiple heads in the current branch, the "fetch" extension
> cannot be used: instead of one command
>
> hg fetch --switch-parent
>
> you have to run three
>
> hg pull -u
> hg merge -r ab3fc5de6b49
> hg commit -m 'merge for patchlevel 7.3.004'
>
> and the text for the latter two (or at least for the middle one) varies
> every time.
You may also run:
hg pull
hg merge -r tip
hg commit -m 'Automated merge with http://vim.googlecode.com/hg/'
Nothing varies in the above three statements, and these statements can
go in a 'my_fetch.sh' script.
The fetch extension has been implemented so as to emulate the behavior
of 'git pull', for people familiar with git I guess. In git, you pull.
In mercurial you pull, then merge or update or wait until a more
appropriate time. Your choice. Mercurial looks more flexible in this
matter. I don't see it as a problem.
Xavier
--
You received this message from the "vim_dev" maillist.
Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to.
For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php
