updating checkouts with no upstream changes

[Stefan Monnier]

>>> 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 this "`update' turns a local commit into a pending merge" is
> very surprising.  I'd rather say "`update' in a bound branch is
> identical to `pull'".  So if you pull after making local changes, you'll
> be requested to merge, after which you won't be surprised to see
> a pending merge.

Actually, another reason why delegating the job to `merge' would make
sense is that `update' does not allow the user to specify the merge
options (I'm terribly fond of --show-base).


        Stefan


PS: Of course, that wouldn't stop me from also wanting the --show-base
functionality for `pull' and `update'.