The push|pull vs update distinction

[Aaron Bentley]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Ian Clatworthy wrote:
> At the moment, it's consistent in the sense that, regardless of
> protocol, pull always updates the working tree and push never does.

I'm not sure if you were explicitly excluding the local-push case, but
it doesn't sound like it.  Push does update the working tree if the
working tree is using the filesystem.

> Rather than making update an option for pull (as Hg does) or outputting
> a message saying we're doing that, I think we should leave pull alone
> and look at improving push. Perhaps push should update iff:
> 
> * there is a working tree
> * the protocol supports it efficiently

We do that already, in the sense that the only protocol that supports
updating working trees at all, much less efficiently, is the filesystem
protocol.

> We could output a warning if we don't update after push to reduce
> surprise for those expecting otherwise.

We already do that, iff there was a remote working tree to update.

Aaron
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFHjFjD0F+nu1YWqI0RAtkOAJ9urQm8N8+xyRZ36n153DZrSe0vlQCdEhEy
uigMQXYKztcgP5sKM5BMWYY=
=N3zr
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----