rename a branch?

[Jeff Dyke]

On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 9:31 AM, Neal Becker <ndbecker2 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Let me give a more complete description
>
> I have a repo where I am testing the idea of keeping 2 branches, 1 is the
> upstream vendor updates, and the other is my local changes on top of them.
>
> I have a branch called 'default', which is actually my upstream vendor branch.
>
> I have a branch called 'test11', which really is my local changes, and I really
> want that to be 'default'.
>
> Here's what I tried:
>
> First a made a new clean repo using clone.
>
> Then in that repo I made a new branch 'vendor'.
>
> Then I copied a newer vendor source version on top of these files.
> Then addremove, and ci -m 'update to ...'.  Now I have a vendor branch with
> updated vendor source.
>
> Then I update to default (that was my old vendor branch).
>
> Then merge with test11, pulling all my local changes into default.
>
> Finally, merge with 'vendor', pulling the new vendor changes into my default.
>
> I think that's got it.  Does this sound correct?
It does to me.  I ran into an issue where i had no default branch, so
i explicitly did a new (hg->hg) conversion and all of my dev's are in
house so it was simple to have them stop for a bit while this ran.  As
long as you have your branches where you want them to be and your
vendors are in the know, you're rockin.  Not having 'default' in my
brand new environment just felt a dirty way to start a new
implementation, so i opted for the convert.

Props to the HG devs for the convert command and the maintaing of
history, great feature!

>
> _______________________________________________
> Mercurial mailing list
> Mercurial at selenic.com
> http://selenic.com/mailman/listinfo/mercurial