Equivalent to Mercurial's 'fetch'

[Ben Finney]

"Martin Pool" <mbp at canonical.com> writes:

> We don't generally auto-commit merges for a few reasons. One is that
> users may want to check the merge was semantically correct as well
> as having no technical conflicts, eg by looking at the diff or
> running some tests. Another is that there is some potential for user
> confusion if you sometimes have to explicitly commit and sometimes
> not.

Yes, I must admit I find the auto-commit behaviour of 'hg fetch' a bit
too magical for comfort.

> But I think there would be no harm in at least having an option for
> this for people who like it. I would probably put it on merge rather
> than having a new command.

That behaviour already exists for those who use 'merge --pull', since
sometimes the pull happens (in which case there's nothing to commit)
and sometimes it doesn't.

In that case, I vote for a single 'merge --automatic' option that
would be like 'merge --pull' but with the added behaviour of
automatically committing a merge if the merge was successful.

-- 
 \      "It seems intuitively obvious to me, which means that it might |
  `\                                        be wrong."  -- Chris Torek |
_o__)                                                                  |
Ben Finney