Björn Winckler wrote: > 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).
In my opinion the default branch should contain the stable version. Most users would sync there once in a while to update their Vim. Developers would want to get the bleeding edge version, and we can assume the can follow the instructions to sync to a different branch. I think what would normally happen is to merge the development branch back into the default branch. But just like the problems you have now, I suspect that migth not work very well. -- >From "know your smileys": %-) After staring at screen for 15 hours /// Bram Moolenaar -- b...@moolenaar.net -- http://www.Moolenaar.net \\\ /// sponsor Vim, vote for features -- http://www.Vim.org/sponsor/ \\\ \\\ download, build and distribute -- http://www.A-A-P.org /// \\\ help me help AIDS victims -- http://ICCF-Holland.org /// -- 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
