[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 12:02 PM, Kevin Berridge wrote:

> Thanks guys, I'll resubmit the first patch tonight.  I should hold off
> on the second until there is a decision on the wording though right?
> What do you think of the idea of having the hints always refer to the
> current branch only?  But adding an informational message about new
> branches?

I like it. It should simplify the code significantly too.

> For example:
> 
> 0: added 1 changesets with 1 changes to 1 files
>     (run 'hg update' to update your working copy)
> 
> 1: added 2 changesets with 2 chanes to 2 files (+1 heads)
>     (run 'hg heads .' to see heads or 'hg merge' to merge) # should
> "." be the branch name instead?

No, I think '.' is sufficiently clear and succinct.

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

> 2: added 2 changesets with 2 chanes to 2 files (+1 heads)
>     (run 'hg update' to update your working copy)
> 
> 3: added 2 changesets with 2 chanes to 2 files (+2 heads)
>     (run 'hg heads .' to see heads or 'hg merge' to merge)
> 
> 4: added 2 changesets with 2 chanes to 2 files (+1 heads, +1 branches)
>     (run 'hg update' to update your working copy)
> 
> 5: added 2 changesets with 2 chanes to 2 files (+2 heads, +1 branches)
>     (run 'hg heads .' to see heads or 'hg merge' to merge)
> 
>                         current named branch
>                      no new heads     new heads
>  other named branches
>  no new heads            [0]           [1]
>  new heads               [2]           [3]
>  new branches            [4]           [5]
> 
> Thanks,
> Kevin Berridge