RFC: dealing with dead, anonymous feature branches

Rafael Villar Burke (Pachi) pachi at rvburke.com
Mon May 17 04:07:43 CDT 2010


El 17/05/2010 10:10, Martin Geisler escribió:
> Let's forget the idea about hidden merges. Like Matt said, it's not very
> Mercurial-like to hide changesets and introducing such a concept would
> open up a whole new set of things to worry about.
>
> The core idea is simple: do not push/pull/clone dead branches.
With something like the bookmarks extension (and pushkeys) in place, 
maybe a good option to implement this idea and have a wider useful 
mechanism is to keep a set of "local" or "not pushed by default" 
branches. It would allow avoiding replication of closed branches to 
later strip them, but also keeping local side branches that could 
potentially benefit users like mq, pbranch, etc.

My 2 cents,

Rafael Villar Burke


More information about the Mercurial-devel mailing list