terminology confusion: bookmark vs named head

[Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso]

On Thu, 2013-12-19 at 09:44 +1100, Stephen Lee wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 3:01 AM, Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso
> <jordigh at octave.org> wrote:
> > On Wed, 2013-12-18 at 18:09 +0300, anatoly techtonik wrote:
> >> That's because "fixes" is a descendant of "master". These bookmarks
> >> are not intuitive, and even more confusing with 'hg up'.
> >
> > They are not intuitive to git users, because they've moulded their
> > "intuition" on git. They even insist on calling it a "merge" when
> > there is absolutely nothing being merged.
> >
> > What you call "intuition" I call perversion. However, this
> > perversion is now widespread since git is widespread.
> >
> 
> Git behaviour aside - this is hardly intuitive.

The only intuition we're born with is that we know how to suckle on
nipples when we're babies. Everything else is habituation. I find hg's
usage consistent.

> In a clone based workflow we do:
> hg pull; hg merge (if the clones have diverged)
> hg pull; hg up (if the clones have not diverged)
> 
> In a bookmark workflow:
> hg pull; hg merge; (if diverged)
> hg pull; hg up; hg book; (if not diverged)
> 
> That extra bookmark step is annoying and easy to forget.

I don't do the extra "hg book" thing. Why are you doing it?

- Jordi G. H.