Old thread resurrecto… Jan Rychter <[email protected]> writes: > I would suggest keeping small "topic branches", e.g. changes grouped > together by functionality, and frequent merges with -dev if maintaining > these branches is costly. It isn't for me, but I can see how it can be a > pain with hg. > > BTW, I also tried maintaining functionality to be submitted in patchsets > using Mercurial queues, but that didn't work out too well. I found I > really prefer a branch to a "patch queue" for development.
So do I, but I think there still might be something there. I suggest that developers be sensitive to how your stuff gets merged in. If we tend to merge your branch wholesale, there's no reason not to do just commit to a branch. However, if we tend to cherry your branch, things can be forgotten, so you would be better off maintaining an MQ so we and you can see "what's left" and you can remove patches as we apply them. > I guess part of my criticism is because I do not know how to get a > cloned repository as a branch. E.g. instead of fully cloned monolithic > weblocks-dev-with-modern-dispatching I would much rather pull in a > branch off weblocks-dev called modern-dispatching. I could then see > where it split from the mainline and possibly cherry-pick things from > that branch. I do not know hg well enough to figure this out. `hg out' or `hg in' can help you with this. -- I write stuff at http://failex.blogspot.com/ now. But the post formatter and themes are terrible for sharing code, the primary content, so it might go away sooner or later. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "weblocks" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/weblocks?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
