Mercurial Branching

A. S. Budden abudden at gmail.com
Fri Feb 24 13:50:04 UTC 2012


On 24 February 2012 13:29, Martin Geisler <mg at aragost.com> wrote:
> "A. S. Budden" <abudden at gmail.com> writes:
>
> Just a small comment on something that caught my eye:
>
>> Using named branches instead of bookmarks might therefore be better.  I
>> guess we can 'suggest' a naming convention (e.g. feature-* user-* etc)
>> for 'temporary' branches, but they will probably stay in the history
>> forever.  I doubt they'll ever be deleted as it looks a bit convoluted
>> to do so (am I right about this?):
>>
>>     1. Finish working on the feature branch
>>     2. Update to 'default' (or whatever the upstream branch is)
>>     3. Merge the feature branch
>>     4. Update to the feature branch
>>     5. Close the feature branch
>>     6. Update to 'default' again
>
> It's more like
>
>  1. Finish work on 'feature'
>  2. Close the feature branch
>  3. Update to upstream branch
>  3. Merge with 'feature'
>
> That is, it's fine to merge the closed feature branch into the upstream
> branch. Doing it like that removes a topological head from the graph and
> makes everything a bit simpler to look at.

That looks much better: thanks, I hadn't realised that. (and thanks to
Wujek Srujek as well for the same explanation).

Al



More information about the Mercurial mailing list