merging default into stable

Adrian Buehlmann adrian at cadifra.com
Wed Jan 20 16:41:11 CST 2010


On 20.01.2010 21:46, Matt Mackall wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-01-20 at 11:43 -0500, venizio krups wrote:
>> hello list,
>>
>> at work we run one repo with two named branches: default, and stable,
>> and the workflow is similar to that of mercurial main tree. bugfixes,
>> and known to be stable changes, go into the stable branch which then
>> gets merged into default. we are now ready for the next major release
>> which brings me to my question.  would it be better to merge default
>> into stable, or to just tag default as released, and re-restart the
>> stable branch later on when needed?
> 
>> what approach will mercurial take?
> 
> Good question. As part of our time-based release process, after we
> freeze the code base, all work will take place on the stable branch. So
> entering the code freeze, I'll probably merge default into stable. Then
> for two weeks, we'll work on the stable branch, then tag 1.5. The first
> non-development check-in post-1.5 will restart the default branch at the
> 1.5 tag.
> 

Last time this question came up on TortoiseHg, I think I voiced for
having a uninterrupted chain of changesets on default, linking through
first parents back to the root.

Not having a default branch during some nodes of history seems odd
to me.

Problem is: I can't explain why.


More information about the Mercurial mailing list