On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 01:25:12 +0100 Éric Araujo <merwok at netwok.org> wrote: > > I've just tried bookmarks and I find them very cumbersome compared to > > named branches (which, unfortunately, can't remain local). I wonder > > what guided their design. > > Mimicking git branches. I've hardly ever used git but I would be surprised if its change tracking abilities were so poor. > > (the core issue being that a bookmark blindly follows every commit you > > do, while you would need it to follow upstream instead!) > > I don’t really understand (I don’t really want to, I don’t care for > bookmarks), but maybe this will help: > http://mercurial.selenic.com/wiki/BookmarksExtension#Configuration That's vaguely better (since it allows to advance one bookmark instead of both), but it still doesn't allow tracking incoming upstream changes. Meaning that as soon as I "hg pull" (not to mention "hg merge"), I lose the ability to easily make a collapsed diff of my local changes. Regards Antoine.
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4