hg update: crossing branches vs. uncommitted changes.

[Matt Mackall]

On Sun, 2009-03-15 at 14:02 -0400, Douglas Philips wrote:
> Is there a philosophical reason in the Mercurial gestalt for using the  
> -C option for both "wipe out uncommitted changes" and "yes, I really  
> did mean to cross branches"?
> 
> I'd like to propose a new switch to update that says: "Yes, I meant to  
> cross branches, and no, I did not mean to throw away uncommitted  
> changes so please abort if I do have them."
> 
> I'm willing to submit the patch, but I was curious if there was a  
> deeper reason I didn't grok about why the two cases were being merged.
> 
> I'd propose -B/--cross-branches as the new switch and leave -C exactly  
> as it is now.
> (I haven't worked up the revised help text or the updates to the test  
> scripts.)

That doesn't seem completely awful. But I think the option name needs
work. Perhaps -c/--cross? We're using -b for -named- branch related
options, so I'd rather not use a 'b' here.

-- 
http://selenic.com : development and support for Mercurial and Linux