Redundant Merges

[Dirkjan Ochtman]

On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 13:45, John Buckley <nhoj.buckley at googlemail.com> wrote:
> Darcs would have handled this non-conflicting merge silently resulting
> in just a single changeset (#1004) with no explicit merge necessary.
> So my question is why doesn't Mercurial do this too? Why should we end
> up with two identical changesets (#1004 & #1005) for a single original
> commit? In a distributed environment we could end up with duplicate
> (merge) changesets for most commits. Is there a way of making
> Mercurial avoid this redundant merge, or of changing our working
> practise to avoid this situation?

You can use the rebase extension and do hg pull --rebase.

Cheers,

Dirkjan