hg summary?

[Bryan]

I like this.  I find that "commit:" and "update:" could be more clear  
if prefixed with "on " or if rewritten as "hg ci:" and "hg up:".

Sent from my iPhone

On Oct 16, 2009, at 9:33 PM, Matt Mackall <mpm at selenic.com> wrote:

> On Sat, Oct 17, 2009 at 03:19:42AM +0200, Isaac Jurado wrote:
>> Replying Matt Mackall:
>>>
>>> It occurs to me that there should be a "you're not on a head!"  
>>> note in
>>> here of some sort. Perhaps "commit:" should say "(new head)"?
>>
>> I would use "status:" instaed of "commit:".  However, the "(new  
>> head)"
>> hint would not make sense in the same line.
>
> Yes, there are already a couple things that don't make sense with
> status, including reporting unresolved files. We'll perhaps also say
> '(new branch)' here as well.
>
> -- 
> Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time.
> _______________________________________________
> Mercurial mailing list
> Mercurial at selenic.com
> http://selenic.com/mailman/listinfo/mercurial