Simple usage pattern seems problematic ?

[JonnyDee]

Hi,

On Jan 22, 2:09 pm, Isaac Jurado <dipto... at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 1:52 PM, Maxim Veksler <ma... at vekslers.org> wrote:
>
> > Developer can't update his local workspace without committing all of his
> > local changes first. Why this constraint exists?
>
> That is simply not true.  When you update a "dirty" working copy,
> Mercurial merges it with the destination revision (conflict resolution
> included).  The only constraint imposed by mercurial is when you do
> this crossing named branches.

it isn't possible when crossing branches in general. If you try to
update from one topological head to another one within the same named
branch it won't work, too.

Best reagrds,
Jonny