divergent @ bookmark (was Re: [PATCH] clone: update to @ bookmark if it exists)

[Sean Farley]

On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 4:36 PM, Augie Fackler <raf at durin42.com> wrote:
>
> On Oct 15, 2012, at 2:04 PM, Kevin Bullock <kbullock+mercurial at ringworld.org> wrote:
>
>> On Oct 15, 2012, at 7:29 AM, David M. Carr wrote:
>>
>>> If the @ bookmark is divergent when pulling from remote "foo", do we
>>> want the divergent bookmark stored as "@foo" or "@@foo"?  The code
>>> currently appears to be using "@@foo".  I think that the double @ sign
>>> looks sort of weird and would have expected the other behavior.
>>>
>>> I suppose the argument in favor of the double @ sign in this case is
>>> that it's more consistent.  Whatever the bookmark name is, you append
>>> an @ sign to express that it's a divergent bookmark, and then include
>>> an identifier to distinguish which remote it refers to.  Reading
>>> "@foo" with that mindset would tell you that it's a divergent ""
>>> (empty string) bookmark for the remote "foo", which isn't accurate.
>>>
>>> That being said, I don't think most users will think it through like
>>> that.  They'll see the double @ sign and assume it's a bug without
>>> further thought.  I think that "@foo" is a perfectly fine way to
>>> represent the concept of "the default bookmark at the remote foo".
>>
>>
>> I'd be in favor of dropping the doubled '@'. ISTR Matt was in favor as well. Patches welcome as always :) It'd be good to straighten this out before 2.4 (which is coming soon, yikes!)
>
> I'm happy to dedicate Friday as a 20% hg hacking day. Matt, does dropping the @@ shenanigans seem Right for 2.4?

As David pointed out, saying, "When you pull from upstream, at will
diverge.  To resolve that, merge with at upstream," is a little silly
to say.

Is changing the default name of '@' off the table at this point or can
we offer / vote on a new name?