On 03/18/2012 12:15 AM, Éric Araujo wrote: > Hi, > > Le 17/03/2012 19:03, Georg Brandl a écrit : >> On 03/17/2012 11:43 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote: >> I'm afraid it's the latter: tags are entries in .hgtags. So when you >> completely >> null-merge your 2.6 changes into 2.7, you are basically removing the tag from >> the 2.7 branch. And since to find tags, Mercurial looks in the .hgtags files >> of all active branch heads, you are basically hiding the tag when you merge >> 2.6 into 2.7, at which point it becomes an inactive branch head. > > The plus side to this concept of tags as entries in a file is that it’s > trivial to add the missing 2.6 tags in the 2.7 branch. > > Note that duplicate entries in .hgtags (when a tag was redone) should > not be “cleaned up”: the presence of the old changeset hash greatly > helps conflict resolution. (If someone pulled the repo with the old tag > and later pulls and updates, then they don’t have to find out which hash > is the right tag, they just accept all changes from the updated file > into their local file.)
I don't understand that argument: especially when there is no change in the tree between the two tags. Georg _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
