Hg update should prefer heads without bookmarks

[David Demelier]

On Fri, 2015-05-29 at 14:08 -0500, Matt Mackall wrote:
> On Fri, 2015-05-29 at 11:31 -0700, cowwoc wrote:
> > On 29/05/2015 1:29 PM, Matt Mackall [via Mercurial] wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2015-05-27 at 11:14 -0700, cowwoc wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > Following up on this old discussion:
> > > > http://www.kevinberridge.com/2012/05/hg-bookmarks-made-me-sad.html
> > > >
> > > > Is there a way to configure a Mercurial repository so that 
> > > client-side "hg
> > > > clone <repo>" and "hg pull -u" resolve to the latest changeset on the
> > > > "default" branch not containing a bookmark?
> > >
> > > You could create a post-clone hook. But you should probably investigate
> > > using the @ bookmark if you're using any bookmarks. It plays the same
> > > role for bookmarks as default does for branches.
> > 
> > This works great. Me so happy! :)
> > 
> > I guess all that's left is to improve the documentation.
> 
> FYI, here is the primary source:
> 
> $ hg help clone
> hg clone [OPTION]... SOURCE [DEST]
> ...
>     If the source repository has a bookmark called '@' set, that revision will
>     be checked out in the new repository by default.
> 
> Much like the default branch, clone is the only place where the @
> default actually means anything.
> 

And what about creating the bookmark @ by default?

Regards,

--
David Demelier