Possible change to the "git push" behavior
Pierre-Yves David
pierre-yves.david at logilab.fr
Tue Mar 20 08:31:17 CDT 2012
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 02:28:10PM +0100, Martin Geisler wrote:
> Greg Ward <greg at gerg.ca> writes:
>
> > On 20 March 2012, Angel Ezquerra Moreu said:
> >> It seems that the Git project is considering changing the default
> >> behavior for the "git push" command (http://lwn.net/Articles/487131).
> >>
> >> Since mercurial bookmarks are meant (AFAIK) to behave similarly to git
> >> branches, would mercurial change the way bookmarks work if git changes
> >> the way git branches work? How would that work given mercurial's
> >> backwards compatibility policy?
> >
> > I don't speak for Matt or for anyone else, but I suspect the answer is
> > "not bloody likely". "hg update" does not behave the same way as "cvs
> > update" does, so why should "hg push" behave the same way as "git
> > push"? Mercurial is its own project with its own aims and its own
> > policies.
> >
> > That said, the "push all changesets by default" policy could be a
> > minor annoyance when using bookmarks.
>
> I know this is about bookmarks, but as a related data point, I can
> mention that Henrik and Sune's repoman wrapper always operates with a -b
> flag in order to push/pull the right named branch instead of operating
> on all of them.
>
> Last time I spoke with them about it, they said that it would be
> impossible (very impractical) for them to push/pull everything by
> default.
the following alias is wonderful:
nudge=push -r .
--
Pierre-Yves David
http://www.logilab.fr/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://selenic.com/pipermail/mercurial-devel/attachments/20120320/aebdbd44/attachment.pgp>
More information about the Mercurial-devel
mailing list