[PATCH] named branches: --newbranch option to allow intial push of new branches

[Dirkjan Ochtman]

On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 23:19, Matt Mackall<mpm at selenic.com> wrote:
> a) Consider new branches to be the same as new heads for the purposes of
> new heads -> require force. This shouldn't be a frequently required
> operation with the new branch push smarts.
>
> b) Allow explicitly-specified heads/branches (ie -r) to be pushed
> without force. Compare hg revert and hg revert foo. People might be
> surprised if they misdirect their push though and be surprised to see
> they shot themselves in the foot so it's not perfect.
>
> c) Add a new option. This is a pretty obscure use case and people might
> also misdirect their push here too.
>
> So I'm currently planning to go with (a) and find out whether there's
> still demand for more here.

I think (a) is fine except for the case of inactive branches, where we
really shouldn't require --force (certainly not now that we have a way
to really close a branch).

Cheers,

Dirkjan