[ANNOUNCE] new extension: localbranch

[Bela Babik]

> > I would use separate clones for -devel and -stable.
> >
> But they won't have a name, and you might want to put the name under
> revision control.

http://192.168.0.1/hg/project1/devel
http://192.168.0.1/hg/project1/stable
or
http://192.168.0.1/hg/devel/project1
http://192.168.0.1/hg/stable/project1

They have a name.

> > > 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.
> >
> But you'll lose the intermediate history.

Use named branches if you would like to keep the history.

You don't always need the full history. Ex. in the devel/stable
situation, in the stable branch it is enough to know which point of
the devel branch were merged in. That's been nicely explained in Linus
mail. You will have a tree of branches and the full history sits where
it is relevant.

teki