On Sun, Feb 27, 2011 at 2:42 AM, Adrian Buehlmann wrote:
> On 2011-02-26 23:26, Greg Ewing wrote:
> > There are *some* topological restrictions, because hg won't
> > let you assign a branch name that's been used before to a node
> > unless one of its parents has that name. So you can't create
> >
On 2011-02-26 23:26, Greg Ewing wrote:
> From: Antoine Pitrou
>> - a "branch" usually means a "named branch": a set of changesets
>> bearing the same label (e.g. "default"); that label is freely chosen
>> by the committer at any point, and enforces no topological
>> characteristic
>
> There
> So, actually, hg promotes a slightly different terminology:
> - a "head" is a changeset without a child in the topology
So what do you call the LoD leading up to a head? (i.e. the set of
changesets that are ancestors of a head and not ancestors of any other head)
Regards,
Martin
_
From: Antoine Pitrou
> - a "branch" usually means a "named branch": a set of changesets
> bearing the same label (e.g. "default"); that label is freely chosen
> by the committer at any point, and enforces no topological
> characteristic
There are *some* topological restrictions, because hg w
On Sat, 26 Feb 2011 10:40:03 -0800
Daniel Stutzbach wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 9:55 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
>
> > There is no such thing as an "unnamed branch". What would "hg branches"
> > show? An empty space?
>
> I understand now why I was confused. I had previously read the sentenc
