Simple usage pattern seems problematic ?
diptongo at gmail.com
Sat Jan 22 20:36:59 CST 2011
On Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 11:46 PM, JonnyDee <jonny.dee.1 at googlemail.com> wrote:
> 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
"The noblest pleasure is the joy of understanding"
Leonardo da Vinci
More information about the Mercurial