selectively applying changesets
bulb at ucw.cz
Tue Sep 27 17:46:18 CDT 2005
On Mon, Sep 26, 2005 at 11:24:51 +0200, Zbynek Winkler wrote:
> Jan Hudec wrote:
> >private$ hack, hack, hack... (and commit several times)
> >private$ hg revert -r something # Oh, it wasn't such a good idea...
> >private$ hack, hack, hack... (and commit several times again)
> >... ok, now it looks sane...
> >private$ hg push -r tip public
> >... but the first branch is not in the ancestry of head, so it does not
> >get pushed. Now others simply pull everything from public.
> I guess you meant 'hg update -C -r something' instead of 'revert'? IMHO
> 'revert' would not go back in history, instead it would apply reverse
> patch to the current head...
Yes, you are right. revert will not mark the tree as being derived from
revision, while update -C will. It is a bit hard to realize this difference.
Jan 'Bulb' Hudec <bulb at ucw.cz>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://www.selenic.com/pipermail/mercurial/attachments/20050928/775d5308/attachment.pgp
More information about the Mercurial