[PATCH 0 of 5] Various updates to make branches work better.

Matt Mackall mpm at selenic.com
Tue Jun 5 12:58:31 CDT 2007

On Tue, Jun 05, 2007 at 10:46:41AM -0700, Eric Hopper wrote:
> On 6/5/07, Matt Mackall <mpm at selenic.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Lastly, branches is made to not display 'inactive' branches by default.
> >> An inactive branch is a branch for which there is no global repository
> >> head.  A new option '-a' is created for branches to display a list of
> >> all the branches in the repository.
> >
> >That's useful, but problematic. For instance, in the case of hg
> >itself, the stable branch is constantly folded back into main, so it's
> >basically never "active" by your definition. Perhaps reversing the
> >sense of your "-a" from "--all" to "--active" and leaving "all" the
> >default is more appropriate?
> I was concerned that I was changing the current default behavior, but I
> figured with a command that hadn't yet made it into a release that this was
> acceptable.  :-)
> Can you think of a better definition of 'active' than I'm using?

Well, we could sort by commit date or revision, which will put the
branches with the most recent activity towards the beginning. I think
we already do that, in fact.
> Is anybody here using the branch feature?  If so, how?  Which default would
> be most useful for you and why?

Perhaps simply listing branches that are heads first will help
matters. With a secondary sort by revision.

Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time.

More information about the Mercurial-devel mailing list