On 2010-03-10, at 2:24 AM, Bert Freudenberg wrote:

> On 10.03.2010, at 05:06, Colin Putney wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On 2010-03-09, at 7:33 PM, Eliot Miranda wrote:
>> 
>>> But I find knowing there's a newer version is /really/ useful.  It's all too easy to miss that someone else has updated your pet package with good stuff and plough on loosing their changes in the mists of time.  I vote for keeping the check-in.  It doesn't stop you form committing but has the huge advantage of knowing that a merge might be in your future.
>> 
>> Why not just open the repository browser after you've committed? Any unmerged versions would be displayed in bold.
>> 
>> Come to think of it, that would be more useful than opening the version inspector the way we do now.
>> 
>> Colin
> 
> This depends on the usage style I think. You can use Monticello in "distributed" style where there is no clear head, or "linear" style where the highest-numbered revision is significant. The Trunk's update mechanism uses the latter so I find the warning useful in that setting.

No. It's always better to commit first and merge afterward. If you have a collaboration style where the "head" is an important concept, you just merge right after committing, rather than at "integration time."

Colin