On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 11:26:36PM +0200, Bram Moolenaar wrote: > I think what would normally happen is to merge the development branch > back into the default branch. But just like the problems you have now, > I suspect that migth not work very well.
This would have worked just fine (as I had mentioned the first time it was brought up). The expected way to resolve the end of a branch's development cycle is to merge it back into its parent. This would have prevented the problem that Tony raised about the default branch now having two heads. The vim73 head would still exist, but it could be marked as a closed branch if you didn't want it to show up in the default "hg heads" view. As such, people could still "hg up vim73" to get the original version with no patches but it wouldn't clutter the default view. Speaking of extra heads, would it make sense to mark the spurious vim head as closed so it doesn't show up in the default view? -- James GPG Key: 1024D/61326D40 2003-09-02 James Vega <[email protected]>
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
