deleting a named branch

[Michael P. Soulier]

Martin Geisler wrote:
> No, unfortunately not. Named branches are not meant for short-lived
> branches but for long-term branches like "stable" vs. "devel".
> 
> In your case, when you want to fix a bug in its own branch, then
> instead of creating a named branch, you can simply make a local clone.
> That gives you two repositories which share the already committed
> changesets. The two working copies are independent, of course.

I would have hoped that Mercurial would be flexible enough to allow me
to determine how to use its features. In this regard, Git works quite
well. My problem with clones is that they don't magically appear on all
of the boxes that I work on, and neither do patch queues. Perhaps a
versioned patch queue that I push to my other boxes would work.

> The downside is that having two repositories might be impractical if
> you have hard-coded the path to your repository in your build tools.
> If your working copy is very large, the doubled disk space might also
> be a concern.

I have development hooks that expect certain paths when not on the
production platform, and I work, at any time, on four different systems,
relying on "hg pull && hg up" to keep my repositories in sync.

Cheers,
Mike
-- 
Michael P. Soulier <msoulier at digitaltorque.ca>
"Any intelligent fool can make things bigger and more complex... It
takes a touch of genius - and a lot of courage to move in the opposite
direction." --Albert Einstein

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 250 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://selenic.com/pipermail/mercurial/attachments/20080608/7d3c513c/attachment.pgp