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