Re: Mercurial "r####" numbers are not stable, use commit ids
"Stephen J. Turnbull" <turnbull(a)sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> writes:
> agree a given mode of operation may be better in Mercurial than
in git.
> I think when you say "branches" you really mean "named
branches", and I
> agree some aspects of them are unintuitive.
I do mean named branches, something I can stash away for a week or
ten, and have the history there when I can come back to it.
For that, a separate repository works better, I think.
A little. But I don't concentrate on a set of patches on a
common
theme over a period of time. I work on a wide variety of things in
response to reports on xemacs-beta, and I fix unrelated bugs as I go
along. I didn't find a comfortable way to use MQ in that setting.
That's exactly where I find MQ extremely useful: As I find something
unrelated, I pop the patches I'm working on, work on the unrelated
thing, then push it back.
--
Cheers =8-} Mike
Friede, Völkerverständigung und überhaupt blabla
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://calypso.tux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta