[PATCH 2 of 2] pull: new output message suggests better update action when a new branch head is added

[Greg Ward]

On 15 March 2011, Kevin Berridge said:
> There are three different scenarios involving new branches:
> 
> 1. no changes on your branch, new branch head added
> 2. changes on your branch but no new head, new branch head added
> 3. changes on your branch and new head, plus a new branch head added

Hangonasec.  I thought we were talking about new heads on some (named)
branch, not about new named branches.  (Just in case there is
terminological confusion here, I am going to explicitly say "named
branch" when I mean "named branch".)

> If we want the message to favor information about your current branch maybe
> there should be three messages like:
> 
> 1: (No changes on this branch, but new branch heads added. Run 'hg branches'
> to see branches)

Disagree.  IMHO the only time it's appropriate to recommend "hg
branches" is if a new named branch has appeared.  If I'm working on
branch 1.1 and someone just added changesets (or increased the head
count) on default, I don't really care.  It doesn't affect me right
now.  Just tell me "new heads on another branch".  Bonus points for
"new heads on branch 'default'", but that is strictly optional.

> 2: (Changes on this branch, and new branch heads added. Run 'hg update' to
> get latest working copy, 'hg branches' to see branches)

"hg branches" is even less relevant here.  What I want to know is,
what are the heads on the current branch?  The answer can be had by
running "hg heads .".

> 3: (New heads on this branch, and new branch heads added. Run 'hg heads' to
> see heads, 'hg merge' to merge, 'hg branches' to see branches)

That's redundant, or I'm confused.  What is the difference between
"new heads on this branch" and "new branch heads added"?  Is the
second one referring to *other* named branches?

        Greg
-- 
Greg Ward                                http://www.gerg.ca/
"He's dead, Jim.  You get his tricorder and I'll grab his wallet."