On 09/23/2016 06:08 PM, Long Vu wrote:
On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 11:50 AM, Long Vu <long...@intelerad.com> wrote:
I emulate git lightweight branching by basically using named branch
with evolve and working on the fork of the "master" repo.
We only enable evolve and non-publishing on the fork repo to make sure
we can not alter history on the master repo where the releases are
coming from.
You could enable evolution on the main (publishing) repository. It will
allow people pushing changeset on the non-publishing one to get proper
obs-markers when they directly pull from the publishing one.
We have one bug/feature per branch on the fork repo so it's very easy
to manage when we have many concurrent bugs/projects to juggle.
From your explanation in the previous email. It sounds like you are
using named-branch in a way close to what topic would provide you. Maybe
you should try topic for a bit and tell use how it feels.
Since we push often to this fork repo, it's like having backup of the
work on our machine and taking last minute day off is easy because the
other person have all the latest code to continue the work without
having to hunt where we store that ongoing work on our machine.
I'm happy to see people using evolution for some of its intended usage ☺
Cheers,
--
Pierre-Yves David
_______________________________________________
Mercurial-devel mailing list
Mercurial-devel@mercurial-scm.org
https://www.mercurial-scm.org/mailman/listinfo/mercurial-devel
