Bookmarks: don't push local bookmark heads by default?

[Matt Mackall]

On Sun, 2012-06-03 at 12:30 +0200, Levi Bard wrote:
> > Right now when we push, we push all heads. But we don't automatically
> > propagate bookmarks so that users can keep a local namespace.
> >
> > In some cases, this is fine. If Alice creates a new head on a branch and
> > puts a bookmark on it, push will refuse to push it without -f and she
> > can then push just the head she wants.
> >
> > But if Alice instead creates a bookmark and makes several commits on the
> > tip of default, then pushes, the remote server will now have Alice's
> > bookmarked commits on default and people will automatically update to
> > those commits. Which means it's not making it very easy for Alice to
> > make a "local branch".
> 
> Don't both secret changesets and the proposed '@' bookmark help with this?

Well, I seem to recall I proposed '@' and it have nothing to do with
this. The -only- semantic of '@' was that it would override 'default' as
the default checkout on clone. This makes it roughly analogous to git's
'master'. But you only get one, so it doesn't help if you have more than
one branch.

> Alice can either mark her first local-only commit as secret

She could, but this doesn't happen by default, so doesn't help with the
"bookmarks could be easier to use" dimension here.

And I don't think we can make this happen by default either: bookmarks
can only be created on existing changesets and we probably don't want to
make existing commits secret.

But we could perhaps have a "start a new secret local branch by
committing the working directory" sort of thingy.

-- 
Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time.