On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 at 22:48 -0700, Shane Hathaway wrote: > Note that I chose to make the change in ~/stable first, allowing me to > use Mercurial's standard merge mechanisms. If I had chosen to make the > change in ~/devel first, I would have to cherry-pick, which is not > nearly as simple.
Thanks for this explanation, better than mine. :-) I think this is definitely a good workflow, and can be done with hg, git, darcs, etc. with ease. > CVS makes this process hard and error prone. Subversion probably isn't > as bad as CVS in this regard, but ever since I started using Mercurial, > I've had no desire to dig deeper into Subversion. Mercurial gets more > done with fewer commands. I've heard git is similar. SVN makes this surprisingly painful. When I was working on Ardour, there was much wailing and gnashing of teeth over merging branches back into trunk. I was using svk, and svk made it easy. Everyone was jealous, but apparently not jealous enough to try a new tool. Funny how we're like that. -- Hans Fugal ; http://hans.fugal.net There's nothing remarkable about it. All one has to do is hit the right keys at the right time and the instrument plays itself. -- Johann Sebastian Bach
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
/* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
