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

[Thomas Keller]

Thomas Keller schrieb:
> 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?

It has been very quite on this topic and my branch is still unfinished.
Anyone want to give me a "Go!" into a certain direction?

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