Comment 3 for bug 629150

> 1 seems sensible to me. Perhaps update should also make sure that the local branch has the same nick as the remote branch?

Making update ensure that the local branch has the same nick as the remote branch is going to be an incompatible change for those users who already manually set the local branch nickname, no? I think without introducing an extra field in branch.conf you can't distinguish between "this nickname has been set on checkout to avoid talking to the server" and "this nickname has been set by the user". So the following sequence could have unexpected (to the user) results:

# lp:foo has nickname "foo-trunk"
$ bzr checkout lp:foo
$ cd foo
$ bzr nick
foo-trunk
# set local nickname
$ bzr nick foo-local
$ bzr update
$ bzr nick
foo-trunk
# huh?