Hg update should prefer heads without bookmarks

[Matt Mackall]

On Mon, 2015-06-22 at 11:43 +0200, David Demelier wrote:
> 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?

What about it? No bookmarks are created by default as bookmarks are an
entirely optional feature.

-- 
Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time.