Re: New branch name with no other changes

In message <[email protected]> on Fri, 10 Jun 2011 16:40:59 +0200, Thomas Keller <[email protected]> said:

me> Am 10.06.2011 16:26, schrieb Hendrik Boom:
me> > Actually, the approve command worked fine, though it took a few moments 
me> > to determine the right revision ID.  Maybe approving the revision in the 
me> > current workspace should be an option on that command?  I wouldn't want 
me> > it to be the default: too easy to approve the wrong thing by accident.
me> 
me> You could use
me> 
me> 	mtn approve -b new.branch w:
me> 
me> for the very same purpose and don't have to figure out the current rev
me> id at all.

But that places the current revision in the new branch as well.  Was
that Hendrik's intention, or was the intention that the next revision
should end up in the new branch?

What you'r forgetting, by the way, is that approve will not place the
workspace in the new branch, so the next commit after that will end up
in the original branch.  I don't think that was Hendrik's intention.
So for completeness, you really need the following:

 	mtn approve -b new.branch w:
	mtn update -r h:new.branch

However, as far as I understand, Hendrik really just wants the next
commit to end up in the new branch.  The simplest way to do that is to
edit the branch setting in _MTN/options...  I really think we should
have a 'mtn branch' that does exactly that.  Last time I suggested
that, there were a number of comments arguing the idea on grounds I'm
not sure I've understood...

Cheers,
Richard

-- 
Richard Levitte                         [email protected]
                                        http://richard.levitte.org/

"Life is a tremendous celebration - and I'm invited!"
-- from a friend's blog, translated from Swedish