hg update: crossing branches vs. uncommitted changes.

Gilles Moris gilles.moris at free.fr
Sun Mar 15 17:01:15 CDT 2009


On Sun March 15 2009 19:02:27 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"?
> 

BTW, there is no need of -C to cross to another named branch.
I have never understood the segregation between update to named branches
and update to local heads. Why the latter should be prevented, provided
a rev is explicitly given to the update command ? I do not find it very
consistent. In a way, local heads are usually "closer" than developments in
named branches.

In my mind, crossing branches should only be prevented when no rev is given
to the update command. Any reason why this would not be the way to go ?

Regards.
Gilles.



More information about the Mercurial-devel mailing list