On 09.09.2010 16:11, Michael Jay Lippert wrote: > 2010/9/9 Andreas Tscharner <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> > > On 09.09.2010 01:54, Michael Jay Lippert wrote: > > [snip] > > The way I've been using it involves creating lots of named > branches and > doing lots of merging. It's been working really well, but I keep > coming > across people who don't think that is such a good thing to do, and I > keep hearing about lots of people using mq. > > > Instead of MQ, you may try using unnamed branches (works well if you > have TortoiseHG). If you don't have a tool that visualizes on which > (unnamed) branch you are, you may try adding bookmarks on your > unnamed branches. > The combination bookmarks and unnamed branches allows you to work > like you were on a named branch, but if you finally merge it, you > can remove the bookmark of that branch (so there is no mess with the > names). Since version 1.6.x, bookmarks are even pulled and pushed > (unfortunately, they didn't seem to be cloned yet). > > [snip] > > Lastly how would you go about working on several 'features' at > the same > time? Would you have several patches, one per feature, but all > intended > to be applied to the default tip? > > > With (unnamed) branches, this is of course no problem... > > Best regards > Andreas > -- > ("`-''-/").___..--''"`-._ > `o_ o ) `-. ( ).`-.__.`) > (_Y_.)' ._ ) `._ `. ``-..-' > _..`--'_..-_/ /--'_.' .' > (il).-'' (li).' ((!.-' > > Andreas Tscharner [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > ICQ-No. 14356454 > > > Thanks everyone for the various links and other advice, I'll see what I > can learn from it all. > > Other than creating lots of names, what is the disadvantage of using > named branches over unnamed branches and bookmarks? Unnamed branches and > bookmarks seems like more work as you'd have to keep moving the bookmark > (I haven't used bookmarks before, so I'm unsure of how they actually work). > > Also there is some advantage w/ named branches of being able to find all > of the changesets related to a particular feature because they are all > on the named branch (from a historical view when going back to find out > what changes were made to implement that feature). > > pbranches was mentioned as an extension whose goal was a more "polished" > experience than mq.
Mq is in widespread use and distributed and tested together with Mercurial. It's maintained by the mercurial developers. > Do others agree and is it under active use and > development? It probably is, but Matt has so far refused to distribute pbranch together with Mercurial (i.e. take pbranch into the mercurial source tree). > Would current mq users ever want to switch to using > pbranches? Not me currently. I managed to get along with mq quite well so far. Mq is a de-facto standard for mercurial. pbranch has been on my "to look at" pile of things for quite a while now though. But I always got distracted by other things when I tried to work through it's documentation. > I'm asking, because if true I'll try to keep an eye on how > that development is going. That certainly can't harm, but I'd recommend to try getting a thorough understanding of mq anyway. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Automate Storage Tiering Simply Optimize IT performance and efficiency through flexible, powerful, automated storage tiering capabilities. View this brief to learn how you can reduce costs and improve performance. http://p.sf.net/sfu/dell-sfdev2dev _______________________________________________ Tortoisehg-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/tortoisehg-discuss
