elmentary (watson): merge (named) branches and/or bookmarks

[Uwe Brauer]

>>> "Arne" == Arne Babenhauserheide <arne_bab at web.de> writes:

   > Uwe Brauer writes:

   >> Sigh, for me this is another reason to concentrate on named branches,
   >> since they behave much more as I expect them to behave. (Besides the
   >> evolve extension makes named branches much more flexible.)

   > Same for me. And I wish I could tell hg-git to use named branches — but
   > I know that this doesn’t work.

Why not? I mean the convert extension would allow to convert named
branches to bookmarks, so I presume that could be used for pushing named
branches as if they were bookmarks. I guess the other way around would
be the messy one. If someone added a git branch to the git repo and you
pull, seems impossible to convert that to a named branch.


   > The trouble you run into is what git calls fast-forward merge, by the
   > way. It’s not an actual merge, just a pointer movement.

   > Maybe we could tell hg merge <bookmark-on-a-child> to simply
   > fast-forward, too. It’s what the user requested with "hg merge" (make A
   > part of B), though it’s not what merge actually does with the history.

I agree completely that would be really brilliant to have!