Question about named branches
kai.grossjohann at verizonbusiness.com
Fri Mar 28 05:21:13 CDT 2008
First of all, it might work to use the branch name instead of the
revision. I haven't tried, though.
Secondly, it seems you are doing the same thing twice, and maybe it
makes things easier to just do it once.
Specifically, you split the work done by each developer by named
branch. Secondly, beyond that, you have different repos per developer.
Wouldn't it be sufficient to have one remote repo shared by all
developers? Then you could pull from that, then merge changes from
other named branches, and when you push, everyone sees your changes (if
Trygve Laugstøl wrote:
> 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 branch?
> : 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
More information about the Mercurial