> > Hg named branches are kind of screwy and bookmarks (which are less screwy) > are still an "extension" >
This is true. Named branches are directly inherited from older versioning systems (cvs, svn, etc.). After 2.0 Matt Mackall was convinced that bookmarks so be completely analgous to git's branching: $ hg branch foo marked working directory as branch foo (branches are permanent and global, did you want a bookmark?) Mercurial 2.1 includes fixes that move and update bookmarks automatically (and also allow pulling divergent bookmarks: foo at 1, foo at 2) so it makes sense to have separate clones to use for release management. > But these releases get merged back, so just tagging them would place the > tarball in the right place. > Righto. > But PETSc release tarballs include generated documentation, so using > bitbucket's auto-generated tag-tarballs is not enough for releases. > Ah, that's right. I think this could be fixed by using the tag info in the scripts that generate the documentation. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.mcs.anl.gov/pipermail/petsc-dev/attachments/20120209/141b8999/attachment.html>
