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

[Jaikiran Pai]

On Saturday 07 February 2015 03:45 AM, Arne Babenhauserheide wrote:
>
> What you’re running into is a philosophical difference between Mercurial and Git.
>
>
> - In Git all the repos are completely separate and you have to connect them by hand.
> - In Mercurial all the repos are part of the project, and you have to separate them by hand.
>
>
> Different from you, I want all commits I do to end up remotely when I push, so others can check them. A bookmark tells others that it might be a bad idea to use intermediate changes, but it does not decouple my repo from theirs.
>
> To decouple my repo I have to explicitly use phases: hg phase --force --secret .
>
> (. is what I’m working on right now)
>
>
> Git formed your expectations to think that you’re always disconnected, except if you connect yourself.
>
> Mercurial keeps you more connected: You’re part of the team and create a shared history. What you have locally is mostly what the whole project sees. You know what the others see which makes it easier to communicate.
>

Arne, you (and others) are right that my previous background on using 
git is playing a role in my expectations. Specifically, in the context 
of this discussion, the mercurial way of doing things seemed "risky" 
when I first started this thread. But now that I have understood all the 
details that have been explained in this thread, I know what parts of my 
dev workflow needs to be changed to have it aligned with how mercurial 
works.

-Jaikiran