1.0 approaches

[Sean Kelley]

Hello,

On Feb 7, 2008 11:52 PM, Matt Mackall <mpm at selenic.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2008-02-07 at 21:36 -0800, John D. Mitchell wrote:
> > On Feb 7, 2008 9:17 PM, Bela Babik <teki321 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > In my opinion, named branches in their current form do more harm than good.
> > > ...
> > > > I'd be inclined to discourage their use strongly in 1.0 (maybe relegating
> > >
> > > I strongly disagree. It is true, that it is more like a dynamic
> > > tag than a branch, but it helps to a lot.
> >
> > Then changing the naming to make that reality clear would be okay to you?
>
> The time for such non-backward-compatible changes has long since past so
> there's not much point to this conversation.


That is good to hear.  We use named branches for our software
configuration management of release branches.  I would enjoy seeing
improvements.

So in our case a Library may have multiple named branches:

default
rel-2.x
rel-3.x

We then have tags for each snapshot point releases.

Many of our developers are very used to GIT branching and if there
were an extension or anything really that could give us what you can
do with GIT branches, all the better.

Sean