[PATCH 2 of 3]: update: don't lose active bookmark when updating to the "." revision

Gregory Szorc gregory.szorc at gmail.com
Wed Nov 11 18:16:57 CST 2015


On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 1:24 AM, Waldemar Kornewald <wkornewald at gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Nov 10, 2015 00:56, "Gregory Szorc" <gregory.szorc at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I frequently use `hg up .` to deactivate the current bookmark because it
> is less typing than `hg book -i`. I concede I probably shouldn't be doing
> this. But I'm lazy and a power user. I'm -0 on this patch because it
> changes my workflow.
> >
>
> I'd really like to know, why do you deactivate bookmarks, at all?
> Also, why do you stay on the same revision? Why not do all development
> with bookmarks?
>
> In Git you even get a big warning (you're in detached mode) whenever
> you deactivate a branch.
>
> We always mark our main branch with an @ bookmark because otherwise
> clone, pull -u, and update would switch to tip - which is some
> arbitrary branch. Also, introducing bookmarks in a later step needs to
> be coordinated with all developers (so they all hg up @). It's really
> unfortunate that bookmarks are such a second-class citizen (not used
> by default, not enforced like in Git).
>

I'm mostly in the same boat as Martin: I typically don't use labels
(bookmarks) because I don't need to. I find that `hg wip` (
http://jordi.inversethought.com/blog/customising-mercurial-like-a-pro/) +
proper commit messages tell me everything I need to know. Labels are
avoidable overhead to me.

However, I do interact with repos that have bookmarks (notably @). So I
find myself activating and/or moving the "global bookmarks" frequently.
When it comes time for me to write new commits, I need to deactivate the
bookmark, hence the `hg up .` trick.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://selenic.com/pipermail/mercurial-devel/attachments/20151111/09c0ee0e/attachment.html>


More information about the Mercurial-devel mailing list