[PATCH] push: do not require --force to push bookmarked head (issue2372)

Prasoon Shukla prasoon92.iitr at gmail.com
Fri Dec 20 01:11:25 CST 2013


Oh well. I didn't know about Stephen's patch, hence this one. So, I'll
just let this lie here (without applying Matt's fix). And by the way,
I've linked Stephen's patch on the bugtracker.

Thread closed.

On 12/20/13, Matt Mackall <mpm at selenic.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 2013-12-20 at 10:06 +1100, Stephen Lee wrote:
>> On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 6:00 AM, Matt Mackall <mpm at selenic.com> wrote:
>> > On Thu, 2013-12-19 at 18:31 +0530, Prasoon Shukla wrote:
>> >> # HG changeset patch
>> >> # User Prasoon Shukla <prasoon92.iitr at gmail.com>
>> >> # Date 1387389770 -19800
>> >> #      Wed Dec 18 23:32:50 2013 +0530
>> >> # Node ID 241543f591d7f40bb5777ce64174b420ae8e713a
>> >> # Parent  5ff0fd02385082433221d0c78a99d310257d27b3
>> >> push: do not require --force to push bookmarked head (issue2372)
>> >>
>> >> When pushing, an error is raised if a new head is created at remote.
>> >> This is to avoid ambiguity for developers pulling from the remote.
>> >> But,
>> >> if this head is bookmarked, then pushing shouldn't require --force.
>> >> This patch implements this function.
>> >
>> > You don't mention -B anywhere up here, so I wrote a rant about how this
>> > was obviously wrong. Please write a more precise description.
>> >
>>
>> I have already sent a patch for this issue (I didn't realise there was
>> an actual bug logged).
>> It allows a new head to be pushed if it has a bookmark FOO, and you
>> specified -B FOO.
>>
>> See http://markmail.org/message/osli572jxcdlbsrj
>
> Yep, that does appear to be the same feature.
>
> --
> Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time.
>
>
>


More information about the Mercurial-devel mailing list