Dear diary, on Tue, Oct 17, 2006 at 01:19:08PM CEST, I got a letter

where Matthieu Moy  said that...

quoted text
> 2) a bound branch. It's not _very_ different from a normal branch, but

>    mostly "commit" behaves differently:

>    - it commits both on the local and the remote branch (equivalent to

>      "commit" + "push", but in a transactional way).

>    - it refuses to commit if you're out of date with the branch you're

>      bound to.

>    (this is "heavy checkout")

It isn't very nice because it enforces the update-before-commit

workflow, which was complaint of many CVS users and I can remember it

being one of the selling points of the distributed VCSes in 2001 or so,

although it is not so emphasized lately. (I understand that this is

something optional in Bazaar.)
BTW, merge commits aren't bad. They reflect what really happenned,

explicitly record the merge resolution taken, if there was any, and

protect you from accidentally losing or damaging [any portion of] your

changes. And they aren't cluttery either since we hide them from

non-graphical history listings by default.
Still, I can recognize that in some scenarios, people might find it

useful, and I can remember some people asking for it in the past. So I

couldn't resist and implemented it in Cogito as cg-commit --push. Pushed

out now. Took me about 5 minutes implementing it and 10 minutes documenting

it.  ;-)
P.S.: A general note for bleeding-edge Cogito users, I've rewritten the

local changes handling so that we always do three-way merge now instead

of that braindead patches diffing/applying, but it's not completely

stable yet, some testcases still fail. So be a bit careful when

updating/uncommitting/switching/... with uncommitted changes in the

working tree.
--

				Petr "Pasky" Baudis

Stuff: http://pasky.or.cz/

#!/bin/perl -sp0777i