Mercurial Workflow: Feature seperation via named branches

[Pierre-Yves David]

On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 11:44:56AM +0200, Martin Geisler wrote:
> Pierre-Yves David <pierre-yves.david at logilab.fr> writes:
> 
> > On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 04:57:29PM +0200, Martin Geisler wrote:
> >
> >> >> By the way, maybe we should begin using some bookmarks in Mercurial
> >> >> itself: Henrik and I could push the patches for abandoned changesets
> >> >> as a branch with a bookmark and you and others could give much better
> >> >> and faster feedback in the form of commits instead of just chatting
> >> >> here.
> >> >
> >> > Hmmm, that'll change everyone's workflow against crew. I'd rather do
> >> > this experiment in another repo.
> >> 
> >> I agree with you -- the crew repository is not the best place to start
> >> this experiment.
> >> 
> >> We could start it outside of crew if we agree that it is okay to
> >> pull+merge the resulting repository back into crew at some point instead
> >> of rebasing the changesets.
> >
> > I don't see pull+merge he resulting repository in crew as a good idea.
> 
> Because you would rather that we keep working with patches of patches (a
> versioned MQ)? or some other reason?

Because your proposal look like creating a noisy history of half baked
changeset instead of clean series of small an atomical commit that rebase and
history edition provide. The see other email for more details.

-- 
Pierre-Yves David
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://selenic.com/pipermail/mercurial/attachments/20110617/0e3b9c1b/attachment.pgp>