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

[Ryan McElroy]

On 2/6/2015 9:44 AM, Sean Farley wrote:
> Jaikiran Pai writes:
>
>> 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
> This is probably behavior we could experiment with in the remotenames
> extension. Thoughts, Ryan?
The remote bookmarks feature in the remotenames extension is, in my 
opinion, heavily influenced by the "good" parts of git's remote 
branches: eg, not moving anything when pulling, and pushing only what 
you want, so I think this is a good thing to base our behavior on.

Cheers,

~Ryan