|
From: | Thomas Keller |
Subject: | Re: [Monotone-devel] Re: [PATCH] mtn commit without -b and mtn branch |
Date: | Sat, 10 Mar 2007 07:20:44 +0100 |
User-agent: | Thunderbird 1.5.0.10 (Macintosh/20070221) |
Zack Weinberg schrieb:
And third ... what I actually *want* update to do in that circumstance is update to the head of the branch that *would* be in _MTN/options if I hadn't gone and munged it. I do this when I have set up a working copy but then not had time to make any actual changes, so it's silly not to be working off the latest revision in n.v.m. I can force an update with -rh:n.v.m but then I have to go munge _MTN/options again.
Agreed, I stumbled upon this a few times as well... what if mtn branch then adds another "new_branch" option into _MTN/option, so that update and revert still work in the current, uncommitted workspace?
mtn revert would remove this new_branch option and mtn commit would use new_branch instead of branch, and, on a successful commit, would write new_branch into branch and remove new_branch as well.
I'm still not persuaded if mtn branch (with any option supplied) should actually update anything. If you don't like "branch" as command for what it does currently, I'm open for renaming it (f.e. to set_branch or something alike). What do other people think about this?
Thomas. -- ICQ: 85945241 | SIP: 1-747-027-0392 | http://www.thomaskeller.biz > Guitone, a frontend for monotone: http://guitone.thomaskeller.biz > Music lyrics and more: http://musicmademe.com
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |