Re: [Monotone-devel] Re: [PATCH] mtn commit without -b and mtn branch

[Thomas Keller]

Zack Weinberg schrieb:
> And third ... what I actually *want* update to do in that circumstance
> is update to the head of the branch that *would* be in _MTN/options if
> I hadn't gone and munged it.  I do this when I have set up a working
> copy but then not had time to make any actual changes, so it's silly
> not to be working off the latest revision in n.v.m.  I can force an
> update with -rh:n.v.m but then I have to go munge _MTN/options again.

Agreed, I stumbled upon this a few times as well... what if mtn branch 
then adds another "new_branch" option into _MTN/option, so that update 
and revert still work in the current, uncommitted workspace?

mtn revert would remove this new_branch option and mtn commit would use 
new_branch instead of branch, and, on a successful commit, would write 
new_branch into branch and remove new_branch as well.

I'm still not persuaded if mtn branch (with any option supplied) should 
actually update anything. If you don't like "branch" as command for what 
it does currently, I'm open for renaming it (f.e. to set_branch or 
something alike). What do other people think about this?

Thomas.

--
ICQ: 85945241 | SIP: 1-747-027-0392 | http://www.thomaskeller.biz
> Guitone, a frontend for monotone: http://guitone.thomaskeller.biz
> Music lyrics and more: http://musicmademe.com