[PATCH RFC] update: add an option to allow to merge local changes when crossing branches

Kevin Bullock kbullock+mercurial at ringworld.org
Sat Feb 23 09:07:07 CST 2013

On 23 Feb 2013, at 5:24 AM, Martin Geisler wrote:

> Kevin Bullock <kbullock+mercurial at ringworld.org> writes:
>> On 22 Feb 2013, at 2:35 PM, Martin Geisler wrote:
>>> I don't know why you say the risk of conflicts is greater here than
>>> with any other update/merge?
>> Simply because you're merging a larger set of changes, as you get to
>> below.
> As you say, a merge because of a dirty working copy will use
> * working copy parent (base)
> * dirty working copy  (local)
> * update target       (other)
> That ought to be an easy merge regardless of the update target since the
> difference between base and local is "small".
> I say "small" because I expect the diff present in the dirty working
> copy to be one commit. That is much smaller than most branch merges
> where the distance from local/other to base is 10, 100 or more commits.

I was assuming that a cross-branch update would use:

* common ancestor of target and WC (base)
* dirty working copy               (local)
* update target on other branch    (other)

Is this not what the patch does?

> My starting point was only that every single time I've had the "sorry, I
> wont help you update across branches" message I "fixed" it by updating
> twice and could continue with my work.

Yes, no disputing that :) I do the same thing relatively regularly.

pacem in terris / мир / शान्ति / ‎‫سَلاَم‬ / 平和
Kevin R. Bullock

More information about the Mercurial-devel mailing list