Why bare 'hg update' needs behaviour change

[David Demelier]

2016-12-20 23:25 GMT+01:00 Marcin Kasperski <Marcin.Kasperski at mekk.waw.pl>:
> Leaving apart the general design discussion: in such a scenario I would
> seriously consider using SINGLE named branch, called experimental (and
> various bookmarks and heads on this branch to mark actual work items) –
> plus merging finished work to default (and merging default back to
> experimental to keep it up to date). This avoild pollution of maaany
> named branches, but clearly separates development from stable and keeps
> hg update sane.
>

To me default is already a branch for development. It's even
recommended to develop on this branch. I use stable branch and
releases branches where only "safe" revisions are committed/pushed.

> Regarding general thing, I think that there is more promise in making
> branches sane (able to fade away, then disappear) than in making
> bookmarks sane (able to stay where they should and cooperate with update
> properly). Those sane branches are to be called topics IIRC, not sure
> how far advanced is the work on them.

Topics are nice but you can't share them unless you make a
non-publishing server which to me is not an option.

-- 
Demelier David