selectively applying changesets

Jan Hudec bulb at
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>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url :

More information about the Mercurial mailing list