On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 3:47 PM, Douglas Philips <[email protected]> wrote: > On or about 2009 Jan 8, at 9:04 AM, TK Soh indited: > >> The changelog view now show the branch names, but we are still lacking >> a way to manage them, i.e. set/reset of branches. I'm not familiar >> with branches, so anyone have some ideas on the GUI design? > > Woot! As someone who has asked for that feature: THANK YOU! > > > (Branch names are recorded as part of the commit meta-data, so they cannot > be reset/changed/etc. in the way that tags can.) > > It would be nice to see a way to filter on the branch name (with a drop down > list of known branches).
This has been supported with the FilterDialog (click on 'Filter' button to show) even in the older releases. We just didn't show the branch names on the revlist. > Branches can be active or inactive, so a sub-filter > option/radio-button/something to show/hide the inactive branch names might > be nice. The branch names come with different color reflecting their status, though your are right that the ability to fine tune their display will certain be nice. FYI, the coloring scheme on the branch names are based on hgweb's gitweb style. > (Branch "activity" is based on whether they have any heads (active) > or not (inactive).) > > Where is the right place to create a new branch? > > To follow the analogy with tags, tags are created and managed in the log > viewer. They are meta-data "on top of" the changeset tree, so it is nice to > be able to make tags from the log viewer. > > Branch names however, cannot be changed or moved once a commit with that > branch name has been done; so it probably makes more sense to create > branches in the commit dialogue. Also, you can commit to a new branch even > if all you have changed in repo is the branch name for the next commit. Our > team at work likes to do that, so that the first changeset on the branch has > no file-content differences from its parent changeset, it is just the start > of the branch. > > The command line interface workflow is that you name the branch -before- the > commit: > % hg branch my-new-work-branch-name-here > % hg commit > Once you have initiated the commit, hg has already decided what branch name > it will use. > (You have to use the force option to hg branch if you are using an existing > branch name in a disjoint part of the changeset tree.) > (If you change your mind on the branch name between the 'hg branch' and the > 'hg commit', you can use --clean to reset the branch name back to the > working directories parent changeset's branch name). I need to take some time to digest this ;-) Thanks for sharing your thought. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Check out the new SourceForge.net Marketplace. It is the best place to buy or sell services for just about anything Open Source. http://p.sf.net/sfu/Xq1LFB _______________________________________________ Tortoisehg-develop mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/tortoisehg-develop
