Simple usage pattern seems problematic ?

[Isaac Jurado]

On Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 11:46 PM, JonnyDee <jonny.dee.1 at googlemail.com> wrote:
> 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.

Ouch!  You are right.  I was writing thinking in the "fast-forward"
merge.  Sorry for the confusion :-S

-- 
Isaac Jurado

"The noblest pleasure is the joy of understanding"
Leonardo da Vinci