On 2007-09-14 19:05, Vladimir Marek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > I believe that push warns you only for unmerged heads.
> >
> > It warns if a push creates more heads, i.e. if there were 2 heads
> > already in the push destination, and the push would spawn a third it
> > will warn. If no new he
> > I believe that push warns you only for unmerged heads.
>
> It warns if a push creates more heads, i.e. if there were 2 heads
> already in the push destination, and the push would spawn a third it
> will warn. If no new heads are created it doesn't.
Ah I see. Yes I tried this
# Create main r
On 2007-09-14 15:47, Vladimir Marek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > In general, mercurial will require you to force a push that adds an
> > extra head to the parent. I can't currently remember if this is the
> > case with formal branches too, or just extra heads (which are assumed
> > to be unmerge
On 2007-09-14 08:23, Richard Lowe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Vladimir Marek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> For what it's worth, I would do (and do do) the multi-gate method, and
>>> don't like the other branching at all.
>>
>> And can you limit new branches creation, or is it process which forbid
> > No doubt about that, this was my argument also. Maybe I choosed wrong
> > alias, I though this is generally for tools, not just for opensolaris ?
>
> It is for tools relevant to OpenSolaris, not tools in general. I think
> your questions would be better answered on a general Mercurial suppor
> > > For what it's worth, I would do (and do do) the multi-gate method, and
> > > don't like the other branching at all.
> >
> > And can you limit new branches creation, or is it process which forbids
> > (or does not encourage to) to create local branches and push them to
> > server ?
>
> You sh
Vladimir Marek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi,
>
>> We (tools-discuss), don't have the slightest thing to do with Java.
>>
>> I understand this is something of a generic question, but do keep in
>> mind that what java choose to do is entirely their own business, maybe
>> what works for us doesn
Hi,
> We (tools-discuss), don't have the slightest thing to do with Java.
>
> I understand this is something of a generic question, but do keep in
> mind that what java choose to do is entirely their own business, maybe
> what works for us doesn't work for them.
Understood, I am not pushing anyo
Vladimir Marek wrote:
> No doubt about that, this was my argument also. Maybe I choosed wrong
> alias, I though this is generally for tools, not just for opensolaris ?
It is for tools relevant to OpenSolaris, not tools in general. I think
your questions would be better answered on a general Merc
Vladimir Marek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi,
>
> Yesterday I had some talk to (mostly) CVS/SVN based guys about
> Mercurial. Maybe it was me, but they were not very happy about possible
> move to Mercurial. For two main reasons:
>
> * You have to pull everything
> Java source base is more than
Hi,
> > Yesterday I had some talk to (mostly) CVS/SVN based guys about
> > Mercurial. Maybe it was me, but they were not very happy about possible
> > move to Mercurial. For two main reasons:
>
> Without appearing to be rude, what is the point of this ? Are you
> trying to say that the OpenSola
Vladimir Marek wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Yesterday I had some talk to (mostly) CVS/SVN based guys about
> Mercurial. Maybe it was me, but they were not very happy about possible
> move to Mercurial. For two main reasons:
Without appearing to be rude, what is the point of this ? Are you
trying to say tha
Hi,
Yesterday I had some talk to (mostly) CVS/SVN based guys about
Mercurial. Maybe it was me, but they were not very happy about possible
move to Mercurial. For two main reasons:
* You have to pull everything
Java source base is more than 1G, as the cvs contains also some compiled
binaries. But
13 matches
Mail list logo
