terminology confusion: bookmark vs named head

[Martin Geisler]

anatoly techtonik <techtonik at gmail.com> writes:

>  On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 4:54 AM, Stephen Lee <sphen.lee at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> The only command that causes bookmark confusion for me is a bare (no
>> arguments) "hg up" which moves the active bookmark to the head you
>> are updating to. This has been a point of discussion in the past, but
>> no conclusions were made.
>
> Even "hg push/pull" still doesn't look great for my original purpose
> for bookmarks and "hg up" as you describe is really awful, but I guess
> it at least doesn't move bookmarks between named branches?

Only because 'hg up' itself doesn't move between named branches. It's
important to understand that the behavior of bookmarks is bolted onto
the existing behavior of Mercurial -- for better and for worse.

I've had great trouble with the distinction between 'hg up' and 'hg up
default' introduced by bookmarks. I'm only very rarely using 'hg up'
without giving it an explicit revision. My thinking is something like
this: why would I want to update without telling update where to go to?
After a pull, I look at the graph and decide where to go. This meant
that I again and again "lost" (deactivated and left behind) my active
bookmark. That is probably a problem with my workflow and maybe
bookmarks work fine if you've been used to them from the beginning.

-- 
Martin Geisler