[ANNOUNCE] new extension: localbranch
Bela Babik
teki321 at gmail.com
Sun Aug 26 09:40:34 CDT 2007
> a branch is part of the history (the branch name is recorded in the
> changelog) and so they are immutable. localbranches are really like
> clones inside a repo, this is usually what people expect from branches
> (not creating a new working copy when you want to work on something
> else).
I would use separate clones for -devel and -stable.
> I would say that a branch (aka named branch) is for long lived
> branches that have a meaning (like -devel / -stable), whereas
> localbranch are for short lived development for people who don't like
> to clone.
Not necessarily. You can use named branches and then merge the final
version with the "revert trick" in one changeset and push that
particular changeset.
teki
More information about the Mercurial
mailing list