Re: extra head

[Daniel J Sebald]

On 08/17/2013 03:48 PM, Ben Abbott wrote:
> On Aug 17, 2013, at 4:19 PM, Daniel J Sebald wrote:
>
> > On 08/16/2013 05:07 PM, Daniel J Sebald wrote:
> > > (Or an equally plausible scenario is that Ben pulled from the
> > > repository when the bookmark wasn't pointing at the most recent code.)
> >
> > I think that is what happened in Ben's case.
> >
> > Here is a snapshot of the current source tree from 
> > http://hg.savannah.gnu.org/hgweb/octave/:
> >
> > age     author  description
> > 60 minutes ago  Rik     doc: Rename @xcode macro to @tcode (transpose code) for 
> > clarity.default tip
> > 15 hours ago    Carnë Draug     imwrite: add simple test for actual 
> > successfully writing
> > 16 hours ago    Carnë Draug     imwrite: fix input checking for colormap (bug 
> > #39791)
> > 18 hours ago    Falk Tannhäuser         __plt__.m: Fix legend when plotting 
> > vector against matrix (bug #39542)
> > 24 hours ago    John Donoghue   Windows GUI: Reimplement tabbing in terminal 
> > window
> > 26 hours ago    Ben Abbott      * scripts/plot/hold.m: Fix typo "vargin" ->  
> > "varargin".@
> > 44 hours ago    John Donoghue   Windows GUI: clear any terminal selection when 
> > pressing a key/pasting to terminal.
> >
> > I see the @ bookmark is not positioned at the tip; it's down at Ben's push from 26 hours ago.  Am I 
> > correct in assuming that neither John, Falk, Carnë nor Rik are using the @ bookmark, i.e., "hg 
> > update @"?  This means that anyone who does "hg update @" on the current repository 
> > will have a working copy with none of those changes.  When that person or persons does a push, 
> > there could be conflicts from time to time that require manual merging.
>
> The graph looks ok to me (i.e. nothing to merge)
>
>         http://hg.savannah.gnu.org/hgweb/octave/graph/1c21f264d26f

Now, true, that is the case.  But when you do the process described in 
your previous post you will be creating a sibling branch at the @ 
bookmark.  That means when you commit/push/merge there are potential 
conflicts with the main "default" branch especially if there have been a 
lot of changes since the last time the @ bookmark is updated.  See how 
it goes, I guess.

Dan