Mike Kupfer wrote:
"Danek" == Danek Duvall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Danek> So what about using mercurial branches?
I haven't been keeping up with Mercurial development, I'm afraid.
How stable is the named branches support? And is it a first-class,
well-integrated feature? I thought the philosophy behind Mercurial was
that a branch is done by cloning the workspace, so I'm a bit concerned
about named branches being bolted on.
Lastly, how much easier do named branches make it for someone to mess up
their workspace or introduce a mismerge?
I believe it makes it easier, since most people (used to using
Mercurial) will be used to typing 'hg update' and assuming "tip" is the
latest.
With branches, you introduce the possibility that a respin (which would
manifest itself as the newest changeset, if no new changeset has gone
into the "main"/default tree) would become 'tip', so doing a 'hg update'
would update you to the respin/build branch rather than the main tree.
(If that's confusing, let me know - I can draw the same whiteboard
drawing Danek drew for me which is clearer)
cheers,
steve
--
stephen lau // [EMAIL PROTECTED] | 650.786.0845 | http://whacked.net
opensolaris // solaris kernel development
_______________________________________________
tools-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
