Re: Mercurial "r####" numbers are not stable, use commit ids
Mike Kupfer writes:
>>>>> "Mats" == Mats Lidell
<matsl(a)xemacs.org> writes:
Mats> I also find the practise of using incoming tree,
"feature"-trees
Mats> and outgoing tree a possible and good way to work although I have
Mats> just a tiny experience with using it. Using MQ, named branches or
Mats> other means to switch between different private tasks, as has been
Mats> discussed, seems so complicated when just using the disc can do
Mats> the trick. But I'm probably missing something here.
Well, you evidently don't feel obligated to keep dozens of separate
tasks in process. The maintainer does. It is definitely convenient
to be able to see diffs between any two branches instantaneously. And
creating an XEmacs branch with hg clone is *slow*. I'm simply not
going to do it as often as with git.
I've used a distributed VCS (first Teamware, then Mercurial)
since
1992. I, too, prefer separate workspaces over branches. I suspect
that some of that preference is due to lack of support in Teamware for
branches, plus my observation of CVS repositories that have an
inpenetrable clutter of branches and tags.
In git you can manage that with mkdir (1) and mv(1).
Also, note that I do not keep all my XEmacs 21.5 work in a single
repository, and don't want to. I do want to have a small number of
repos.
I want to keep those separate so that they can be submitted and
discussed individually. If I commit them as normal changesets,
subsequent merges or refinements of the original patch can make it
hard to extract out the exact patch for submission.
In hg, that is indeed true. In git, "no problema o menos." All you
have to do is remember the name of the branch.
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://calypso.tux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta