Christian Brabandt wrote: > > Secondly, I disagree that "It is dangerous to pull changes from the central > > vim repository, while there are still patches applied." Pulling with patches > > applied always works just fine, the mq patches act just like real Mecurial > > changesets. What you don't want to do, is update after a pull with the > > patches still applied, because then you need to back up to a different > > changeset to unapply the patches. But even update isn't "dangerous". What > > would be bad is trying to merge the upstream changes into your mq patches > > using Mercurial merge commands. > > Yes, that's what I meant. So, to how about this: > > It is dangerous to pull changes from the central vim repository and > update your working copy at the same time (-u flag), while there are > still patches applied. Instead, make sure to pop all patches, update the > repository and push your patches again:
You may be better off enabling the rebase extension and running "hg pull --rebase", since that will enable mercurial's merging mechanics, rather than the qpop/qpush pair, which will (if there are conflicts) leave patch reject files lying around, which you then need to merge manually. It's also not at all dangerous to pull -u when there are patches applied; the only thing that will happen is that mercurial will complain that it won't update across heads and leave you where you are. You can then qpop/qpush or rebase your queue. Danek -- -- 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 --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "vim_dev" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
