[issue92] merge can capture uncommitted changes

[Daniel Santa Cruz]

+1 on that.  I have gotten bit many times from this issue.  Seems to
me that update -m should refuse to operate if there are uncommited
changes in localdir.

Daniel

On 12/12/05, Bryan O'Sullivan <mercurial-bugs at selenic.com> wrote:
>
> New submission from Bryan O'Sullivan <bos at serpentine.com>:
>
> I ran into a situation last week that I think could do with some addressing.
>
> I made some changes in two different copies of a repository, remote and local.
> Made some further changes in the local repo, but never committed them.
> Pulled the changes from remote into local.
> Forgot I had uncommitted changes in local, did an update -m.
> The result was a merge of the remote repo contents, the local repo contents,
> and the uncommitted stuff I hadn't intended to commit.
>
> This seems like it should be an easy situation to detect and abort on, with the
> abort sowngradeable to a warning if it turns out to have been deliberate.
>
> This wasn't the first time I accidentally committed unintended changes by doing
> a merge.
>
> ----------
> messages: 293
> nosy: bos
> priority: bug
> status: unread
> title: merge can capture uncommitted changes
>
> ____________________________________________________
> Mercurial issue tracker <mercurial-bugs at selenic.com>
> <http://www.selenic.com/mercurial/bts/issue92>
> ____________________________________________________
>
> _______________________________________________
> Mercurial mailing list
> Mercurial at selenic.com
> http://selenic.com/mailman/listinfo/mercurial
>