Deprecating inactive heads

Matt Mackall mpm at selenic.com
Thu Aug 18 17:00:18 CDT 2011


On Thu, 2011-08-18 at 20:54 +0200, Isaac Jurado wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 8:43 PM, Matt Mackall <mpm at selenic.com> wrote:
> >
> > Currently the heads command has a notion of 'inactive' heads that
> > users find quite confusing. It typically shows up something like this:
> >
> > default                    15047:f4e52836c7c8
> > stable                     15042:5e7f03cfeeb9 (inactive)
> >
> > Here inactive means that the branch is not currently a topological
> > head of the repo and actually says very little about whether it's in
> > active development. Now that we have closed branches, this notion of
> > inactive is more or less completely useless.
> 
> +1
> 
> This always catches me.  Every time I see the inactive marker I quickly
> react with a "hg glog" to search the merge point.  I'm not sure if this
> is actually good or bad but I must confess that I tend to perceive that
> marker as a warning.
> 
> Speaking of cognitive processes, and a bit off topic.  Do all these
> recent proposal have something to do with the major number change?  Even
> if there are no backward incompatibilities, isn't it a bit true that we
> all tend to like this feeling of newness?

Not really. At this rate, 2.0 will be a pretty tame release compared to
1.9.

-- 
Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time.




More information about the Mercurial-devel mailing list