You could use the hg bookmark extension and keep 2 local branches. One branch for upstream code and the other branch for your own changes. Before you did a pull, you'd switch back to your upstream branch, pull, switch to local change branch, merge (or rebase) with upstream branch, etc...
At least that's how I do it with git and it works great. On Aug 9, 8:20 am, mwolfe02 <[email protected]> wrote: > I'm just looking for a best practice here. I am running web2py using > a clone of the repositoryhttps://web2py.googlecode.com/hg/. This has > worked really well for me. However, I just added a routes.py file. > Clearly, I want to version control this file, but that requires > committing the change to my local web2py repository. That's not a > problem, except that every time I update to the latest web2py version > I'll have two heads and have to merge. The merge should always be > done without conflicts, but it would be an extra step I'd have to do > each time. Also, if I wanted to send patches in at some point in the > future, would those extra changesets in my local repository cause > problems? > > I'm pretty well versed in using Mercurial for my own projects, but > web2py is the first open-source project I've been running from the > repository. > > My approach would be: Pull --> Update --> Merge --> Commit. Is there > a better way? > > (Note: I'm using TortoiseHg on Windows, so if anyone has specific > experience with that I'd like to hear that, too.) > > Thanks, > Mike
