do not abort with 'update -m', uncommited changes and linear history
Zakirov, Salikh
salikh.zakirov at intel.com
Tue Jan 31 14:12:07 UTC 2006
Hi, Hg-ers!
> It looks like a lot of people (me :) ) would love to have an explicit
> 'hg merge'...
I would also like to have 'hg merge' support fully automated mode
for simple merges, i.e. perform simple merges directly in the database,
without requiring working copy and commit operation.
The background for this requirement is an intention to try Hg in team
development, where most of the development is non-conflicting, and
lifting the merge responsibility from individual developers looks
reasonable. What's even more important, the "single-head" property will
be maintained at the greater percent of the time.
>
> By the time, I got used to the mercurial usages, but I would find
> the following user interface *much* more user friendly and clearer:
> * 'hg merge' instead of 'hg update -m'
> * 'hg checkout' instead of 'hg update -C'
Maybe 'hg switch'?
Checkout looks more conceptually similar to 'hg clone'.
> * 'hg update' does only the 'hg update', nothing more.
>
> '-f' could apply to all of the above.
>
> What do you think?
Generally, the idea looks very reasonable and will improve usability a
lot.
P.S.
Thanks a lot to all Hg contributors for your effort!
Hg is a great toy to play with!
More information about the Mercurial
mailing list