dummy merge (two branches) for dummies

[Uwe Brauer]

    > The nitpick is wrong. It really should be "hg branch uwe", because
    > that's the only thing that should be changed in the dirstate after the
    > initial update to foo: the branch name. Everything else should stay as
    > it is. As I wrote before, my initial post was wrong in the order of
    > arguments of debugsetparents. Since you are at "foo", that should also
    > be the first argument in the parents list, otherwise Mercurial would
    > get quite confused and produce what Mischa Becker pointed out.

    > So the proper chain is:
    > hg update foo
    > hg debugsetparents foo uwe
    > hg branch uwe
    > hg commit -m "Merge"


Sorry I tried this now two times in two different directories.
So the proper chain is:
hg update foo
hg debugsetparents foo uwe
hg branch uwe
hg commit -m "Merge"

And

So the proper chain is:
hg update foo
hg debugsetparents uwe foo 
hg branch uwe
hg commit -m "Merge"



Give for me (in the example Mischa Becker posted)

The same result.

    > This will give you a merge commit that has the exact same content as the foo revision.

After thinking for a while, for the workflow I have in mind, this
solution is not what fits me best. My co author usually heavily  edits one
main file and does not add nor delete files, while I do, but would like
to dummy merge his changes of the main file into my branch, so the
first solution Mischa posted

   hg update uwe
   hg merge foo --tool internal:other
   hg commit -m "Merge foo internal:other"

Is what fits best (in these particular circumstances).