updating checkouts with no upstream changes
pickscrape at gmail.com
Tue May 13 13:32:15 BST 2008
Martin Pool wrote:
> On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 9:12 AM, Russ Brown <pickscrape at gmail.com> wrote:
>> My expectation is that if I'm updating, and the upstream branch doesn't
>> have any new revisions that I don't have already, it shouldn't do anything.
> ... but if it does have new changes, they should be pulled in and your
> local changes should become pending merges, as at present?
I think I actually prefer Stefan's solution: if update can't act with
merges being needed, it should refer you to the merge command so you can
get back in sync that way. At least that way you have to option to not
bother with the update and carry on committing locally for a while
before you do decide to merge.
> That sounds reasonable to me. Completeness suggests there should be
> some way to force your local changes off to the side even if there are
> no upstream commits, but maybe that shouldn't be the default.
Yes, this is the only thing that is missing. Maybe a --force option on
update would do the trick?
> Unless someone replies to disagree, could you file a bug for this? It
> should be a pretty small change if you want to try it.
Will do once there's a definitive solution (unless you prefer to do that
on the bug ticket itself?) And if I get time I might have a crack at it
myself too. :)
More information about the bazaar