On Saturday, August 09, 2014 08:22:40 PM Dirk Bächle wrote: > On 09.08.2014 20:05, Russel Winder wrote: > > On Sat, 2014-08-09 at 13:33 -0400, William Blevins wrote: > >> [...] > > > > Our problem is that it seems that maintaining a long running > > synchronized clone of a default branch leads Mercurial to having > > problems on a final merge. Advice from a Mercurial expert was that > > actually the result was fine, just ugly. Gary felt it was an ugly too > > far and that we should not use that way of merging. Nothing wrong there > > per se. It just brings into stark relief that we do not have a > > reasonable workflow just now. > > I still don't feel the logic behind this reasoning. For me, the fact > that the end result looks "messy" doesn't have anything to do with the > workflow itself.
Well, the "messy" bit is information that nobody really cares about; so why keep it around? -- Mark A. Flacy _______________________________________________ Scons-dev mailing list [email protected] http://two.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-dev
