Question about named branches
trygvis at inamo.no
Fri Mar 28 04:56:52 CDT 2008
Ian Lewis skrev:
> This is one of the problems of using named branches. You cannot
> selectively push named branches. If each developer has his own
> repository why are you creating named branches for each developer? Each
> developer essentially has his own branch just by nature of having his
> own clone of the repository. And determining who committed what change
> can be maintained by user name.
Because I want to easily be able to just update to a different branch to
get the few files that has changed and not have to stop all the servers,
open a new workspace in my IDE and restart everything.
Using named branches make this whole process very easy, in particular
now that all three developers are experimenting (new technology, new
application) a lot on each our own different parts of the applications.
The whole reason for us to try out mercurial was to be able to share
changes easily without everything having to go on trunk.
> 2008/3/28, Trygve Laugstøl <trygvis at inamo.no <mailto:trygvis at inamo.no>>:
> Given this situation:
> * Each developer has its own repository
> * Each developer has a branched named the same as their user id
> * Each developer pulls from the other repository of the developers
> Then when after I've pulled in the work from developer A to try it out,
> I continue to work on my own branch with more commits. When I want to
> push my changes to my (personal) remote repository it fails because it
> would create multiple heads. I can fix this by giving a revisition to
> push , but then I first have to do "hg id" to find the revision.
> Is there any way to get hg push to only push changes that are on my
> : speaking of pushing revision, will it include all missing dependent
> changesets when pushing, or only the one I'm giving as an argument?
> Mercurial mailing list
> Mercurial at selenic.com <mailto:Mercurial at selenic.com>
More information about the Mercurial