updating checkouts with no upstream changes

[Stefan Monnier]

>> 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.

> Can I ask what you think using bound branches (heavyweight checkouts)
> buys you in this situation? All that would be different if you were to

Don't know about Russ's situation, but I use bound branches extensively
because I generally want to share/spread my changes as often/early as
possible.  Most of my "branches" are really just copies of the same
conceptual branch (one per machine on which I work), so I want to keep
them in sync whenever possible.  So the "commit --local" is hopefully
the exception when I don't have network connectivity.


        Stefan