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

[Kevin Bullock]

On Mar 17, 2011, at 8:23 AM, Greg Ward wrote:

> On 16 March 2011, Kevin Bullock said:
>> If I might suggest a slightly more useful table (which might be what you meant anyway, but this clarifies at least case [3]):
>> 
>>                        current named branch
>>                     no new heads     new heads
>> other named branches
>> no new heads            [0]           [1]
>> new heads               [2]           [3]
>> new branches            [4]           [5]
>> 
> [...]
[...]

> 0: "run 'hg update' to update your working copy" (rather than "get a
>   working copy", which only makes sense if dirstate.parents()[0] ==
>   nullrev)

Yup, that's an improvement.

> 3: same as 1: new heads on current branch should override other
>   concerns; in this case, I don't care about new heads on
>   other branches

I'm still ambivalent on this one. I see your point, but it also seems like I would want to know if new heads have been added on other branches too. Then again, maybe seeing (+4 heads) in the previous line would be enough of a red flag. :)

> 5: same as 1: again, new heads on current branch trumps arrival of new
>   branch

I'll admit I can't logically defend my ambivalence on [3] while agreeing with you fully here.

> Kevin Berridge, I hope you're still following, because the
> amount of feedback you're getting means *we like your patch*.  ;-)

Indeed! Please resubmit an updated patch anytime; you don't have to wait for us to be done playing hint-tennis.

pacem in terris / mir / shanti / salaam / heiwa
Kevin R. Bullock