[PATCH 0 of 8 RFC] Add guard option to update, which aborts if the update is unsafe

[Martin Geisler]

Laurens Holst <laurens.nospam at grauw.nl> writes:

> Op 05-01-12 16:41, Martin Geisler schreef:
>> Laurens Holst <laurens.nospam at grauw.nl> writes:
>>
>> Did we not discuss this recently -- as in here:
>>
>>   http://markmail.org/message/izeibc7ixlwehwuf
>
> I don’t read that list, sorry...
>
>> I suffer from a bad cold right now, so I'm probably not thinking too
>> clearly, but what's missing from the 'hg resolve' recipe I give in
>> that mail?
>
> How is that trivial interaction? :)

It's far from trivial :)

> You say yourself, “So it's definitely not something to play around
> with on your first try with Mercurial”. There is still lots of
> prompting and stuff going on, especially when conflicting files are
> moved or permissions are changed.
>
> Also the example is not exactly easily found, and the average user
> will probably consider his original changes lost and start to work on
> resolving the conflict because that’s the easiest way to get back to
> working code, or try to recover his changes from the .orig-files.
>
> The point is to make it low-effort, so that you don’t get disrupted
> from your coding flow by being forced to deal with merge conflicts. I
> think for many users, hg update is kind of Russian roulette :). They
> update praying no conflicts occur.

Right, agreed. I just wanted to note that we already have some of the
infrastructure for this and make sure you were aware of it. It's great
if you can improve this use case since I agree that it's optimal now.

-- 
Martin Geisler

Mercurial links: http://mercurial.ch/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://selenic.com/pipermail/mercurial-devel/attachments/20120105/ffe07afe/attachment.pgp>