Another oddity about named branches

[Alpár Jüttner]

Hi,

In general, 'hg st' should report the changes that next 'hg commit' will
put into the chgset. For example

$ hg st
M f.txt
$ hg ci -m X   # will commit f.txt
$

but

$ hg ci -m X
$ hg st
$ hg ci -m X
nothing changed
$

However it is not the case when a new named branch has been created:

$ hg branch my-branch
marked working directory as branch my-branch
$ hg st         #reports nothing
$ hg ci -m X    #creates a new chgset
$ hg st         #reports nothing
$ hg ci -m X    #commits nothing
nothing changed
$ 

I think this is quite misleading.

Regards,
Alpar

On Fri, 2009-05-22 at 13:10 -0300, Maurício wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I see that if I'm working in branch 'default' and
> then I
> 
>     hg branch my_branch
>     (work...)
>     hg commit
> 
> and then I ask
> 
>     hg heads
> 
> mercurial only shows me 'my_branch' last commit
> as a head. Should not 'default' last commit be
> also considered a head? After all, if I'm starting
> a new branch, I probably do want a separate line
> of development.
> 
> Thanks,
> Maurício
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Mercurial mailing list
> Mercurial at selenic.com
> http://selenic.com/mailman/listinfo/mercurial