On 17 August 2010 13:11, Xavier de Gaye wrote: > On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 7:01 PM, Bram Moolenaar wrote: >> >> Xavier de Gaye wrote: >> >>> > >> The 'vim73' branch can be given the name of the 'default' branch with >>> > >> the 'hg branch --force default' command after the 'default' branch is >>> > >> named 'vim72' with the 'hg branch vim72' command (both followed by >>> > >> commit). >>> > >> ... >>> > > >>> > > Now that I'm ready to make vim73 the default branch, it occurs to me >>> > > that when I do this, doing "hg update vim73" will stop working. >>> > > > > > > Assume that on doing the first branching last may, the reverse had > been done instead, that is: > > . the vim73 release is developed on the main branch (the 'default' > NamedBranch) > > . creation of a 'vim72' NamedBranch where the critical patches of the main > branch (the 'default' NamedBranch) are retrofited as vim72 patches > > . the 'vim73' NamedBranch does not exist > > What would have changed: > > . no need to 'hg update vim73' when the branch was created (as most > of us probably did at this time) > > . no need to 'hg update default' now (without forgetting to do > first a 'hg pull'), once the vim73 release is done > > What are the drawbacks of the above scheme ?
It would have made life easier for me with maintaining the Git repository. Renaming the "vim73" branch "default" lead to problems as I outlined in a recent post. Had the development of vim73 taken place on the "default" branch I would have had no problems. I for one would be very happy if the next version (vim74?) used this scheme (i.e. where all new work happens on the "default" branch). Björn -- You received this message from the "vim_dev" maillist. Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to. For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php
