Peter Memishian wrote:
> >> (If that's confusing, let me know - I can draw the same whiteboard
> >> drawing Danek drew for me which is clearer)
> >
> > It seems to me that *someone* should draw it, and post it.
> >
> > - Stephen
>
> Attached.
Thanks for the picture. While I know very little about Mercurial at this
point, I like the idea of having each snapshot be represented as a branch.
> If you look at the image, the central "spine" is the main tree. With
> the branches coming off (tagged in blue). What I was trying to convey
> is that we're used to "tip" being the most recent putback in the main
> tree, i.e.: putback 6. In the branches case, if onnv_60 branched off,
> and there were respins or backouts that came in *after* putback6 went
> in, then "tip" would point to a changeset in the onnv_60 branch, rather
> than the main branch.
Seems like it should be possible to make Mercurial grok this and do the
right thing, no?
The thing here is that 'hg pull -u' takes you to the latest (by time) change.
So whether we gave the center line a real name you could hg update to or
not, it'd still be fairly unusual behaviour as compared to what both sets of
people (TW users, and Hg users) are used to.
I don't see anyway to make mercurial "do the right thing", especially when
"the right thing" is entirely subjective, except keep local modifications
(and even then, I haven't actually looked into what would be required).
-- Rich
_______________________________________________
tools-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
