Why did "hg push", push my local bookmark to remote?

[Jaikiran Pai]

On Friday 06 February 2015 12:41 PM, Sean Farley wrote:
>> I however wish that it was much simpler than this and maybe that
>> proposal in that mercurial-dev thread from 2012 could be revisited to
>> improve the situation?
> That is moot as far as I understand. What would be considered now is a
> proposal to improve the 'paths' option to only push certain branches to
> specific remote servers.
>
> I don't understand what you want to be easier. You are saying that
> adding *one* command-line option of '-s' to your secret branch is too
> hard? I find that very explicit and refreshing that Mercurial is doing
> what I told it to do: mark this secret. Commits on top of secret commits
> are always secret.

Sean, the thing I wish was easier was local/lightweight branches in 
mercurial. As a developer working on various different features, bug 
fixes locally I wish it's easier to just do a "hg up 
local-branch/bookmark/or-whatever-other-term", then do some commits on 
it and don't have to worry that those commits will end up remotely 
unless I explicitly push them. The "paths" proposal sounds like it could 
take care of this. From what I understand of that proposal, it sounds 
like I would be able to do in hg what I currently can do with local 
lightweight branches in git like:

git checkout local-branch-foo
... // do changes
git commit -m "WIP commit locally"
git push upstream master // i.e. *don't* push local-branch-foo but only 
push the branch named master to upstream remote repo
... // more changes to local branch and now ready to have it included in 
master branch
git rebase upstream/master // rebase my local branch commits on top of 
upstream master branch
git push upstream master // now that the local commits are ready to be 
pushed to upstream and are rebase on (local) master branch, push it to 
the remote master branch


-Jaikiran