> ? All the fixes that go in the "release repo" also need to go into the > "development repo", I don't want to have any chance of ?the "release repo" > becoming a branch; I want it to only be an earlier version of the development > repo.
Right ... which is why there is a "freeze" on the dev repo. Making a release implies that it will be a branch, see for instance: http://mercurial.selenic.com/wiki/StandardBranching Each of our petsc-3.X repos are open heads compared to petsc-dev. We could maintain the exact same workflow if we just had one petsc-dev repo with two branches: default (already there) and stable (an open head of the lastest release). Plus, we'd be able to use the 'graft' command to backport fixes.
