Re: [glob2-devel] first steps in mercurial

[Kai Antweiler]

> So this is the cvs-like branch you were talking about before?

Yes.


> Does it retain the full power of mercurial?

Hard to say.
Basically branch names are just references to revisions.
They don't influence the structure of the repository by them self.
They only influence how we use the repository, which influences
the structure.

Some observations of what I expect of using branch tags:
* hg log is not that tidy.

* If someone does "hg pull" instead of "hg pull -r master", he is
 going to get the wrong branch.  Especially if someone just accidentally
 finds our repository and pulls he will use the wrong branch.

 We could avoid this problem by using to repositories.  One with
 only one branch (i.e: only merged in branches at the tip)
 and one with a lot of different branches.
 Once a branch becomes mature, merge it into the other repository.
 (i.e: first merge it in the multi branch repository,
 then "push -r <branchname> ..." to the one-branch-only repository.

* I don't know how good hbisect deals with merged branches.
 Maybe the cvs style branch tag helps it to work properly.

* My choice of calling a branch "master" might be beneficial or
 disturbing for git-hg or hg-git conversions.  This would depend
 on the tool.  I think it was a bad choice.  I should have called
 it "main".


> If such a branch gets integrated into "master", only the meta
> information is duplicated as the changeset are already there?

Exactly.  It is just a tag entry for the revisions.

--
Kai Antweiler