Re: Mercurial "r####" numbers are not stable, use commit ids
"Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen(a)xemacs.org> writes:
Michael Sperber writes:
> I still don't understand what your problem is.
Mercurial makes it somewhat hard to do what I want to do (work in
branches), makes it easy to make mistakes in that mode, and makes it
hard to produce high S/N log listings and diffs.
I think the problem is *how* you go about working in branches, and I
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. They certainly don't work
very well when you work locally on a set of patches on a common theme,
to revise and push them later. For that setting, I've found that MQ
works exceedingly well. Have you tried it?
Are you sure that "hg push" knows anything about branches?
It doesn't know anything special about "named branches"---I'm guessing
you created a named branch and pushed without an intervening commit to
the old head. In that case, no new heads get created, and I'm guessing
"hg push" doesn't complain.
--
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