Bookmarks with hg update question

[Scott Palmer]

It's not that it can't be done, but existing scripts will break (silently perhaps) and that sort of thing.

If I have an *active* bookmark and I execute an update without specifying a revision it means I want to advance the bookmark as far as I can.  If you don't want the bookmark to move, don't activate it, or specify a revision with your update.

This is consistent with the non-bookmark workflow. You do an update with no revision to move as far ahead as you can before committing new work. Same goes if I want to commit the work to the active bookmark.

Usually I would want to start a new bookmark at the '@' bookmark. But if it moves before I commit to my bookmark, it isn't "wrong" to move to the new location of '@' first.  If I've already committed, then the update won't take me off the new branch (topological head) anyway.

I can just as well ask, "Would it be a major hardship to add 'tip' instead of breaking existing workflows?"

My current issue is that TortoiseHg doesn't have an easy way to do the equivalent of the current command line behaviour. It  moves me off the bookmark when I don't want it to. Explicitly moving the bookmark with TortoiseHg is dangerous because I can easily accidentally jump to a different head.

Scott

> On Jun 27, 2016, at 8:46 PM, Ethan Furman <ethan at stoneleaf.us> wrote:
> 
>> On 06/27/2016 05:27 PM, Scott Palmer wrote:
>> 
>> Am I the only one that thinks the current behaviour makes sense?
> 
> Apparently.  ;)
> 
> Will it be a major hardship for you add an extra --move-bookmark when you update?  Even when you can alias that in?
> 
> --
> ~Ethan~
> _______________________________________________
> Mercurial mailing list
> Mercurial at mercurial-scm.org
> https://www.mercurial-scm.org/mailman/listinfo/mercurial