Current viability of share

[Matt Mackall]

On Thu, 2014-06-26 at 09:12 -0400, Greg Ward wrote:
> On 25 June 2014, Gregory Szorc said:
> > What scenarios, if any, will cause an evolution user to strip store
> > data, causing incompatibilities with share? Also, I'd appreciate
> > clarification on whether using share locally for active development
> > scenarios (as opposed to pull only "headless" scenarios) is a goal.
> 
> At my former job, we designed the entire workflow around shared repos.
> It worked pretty well. AFAIK it's still working pretty well.
> 
> (However, rewriting history was *not* part of the official workflow.
> Anyone using MQ or rebase was technically on their own, although of
> course I would help out if they got into trouble. And there were a
> couple of sticky messes that took some work to clean up. "hg update"
> got smarter about cleaning up those messes a couple of years ago,
> partly I think because of my complaining.)

My own setup used share AND mq for a few years. It continues to use
share and evolve, with one share for default and one share for the
stable branch.

-- 
Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time.