Completely baffled

[Martin Geisler]

Isaac Jurado <diptongo at gmail.com> writes:

> On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 11:35 AM, Martin Geisler <mg at aragost.com> wrote:
>>
>> Running
>>
>>  $ hg commit
>>  $ hg pull --rebase
>>
>> should do the same as running:
>>
>>  $ hg pull --update
>>  $ hg commit
>>
>> with the difference that you have the option to further tweak your
>> dirty working copy before you actually do the commit. In particular,
>> the any merge conflicts should be the same and you should get the
>> same tool support.
>
> I'm sorry to disagree but, no way. I know update merges three-way but
> there is one major drawback: you can't go back. With merge or rebase,
> you can abort and start over as many times as you want.

That is an important difference: the changes are stored "more robustly"
in their own changesets when you merge or rebase. So it's more difficult
to accidentally lose them.

> Unless there is something I don't know about, updating a dirty working
> copy is only one way.

You can use 'hg resolve' after the update to re-do the merge and even
resurrect the old version of your modified files.

I haven't tested this right now, but I would expect

  hg resolve --all --tool internal:local
  hg update OLDREV

to get you safely back to where you were before you ran 'hg update NEW'.
Please let us know if you test this.

-- 
Martin Geisler

aragost Trifork
Professional Mercurial support
http://mercurial.aragost.com/kick-start/