Le samedi 26 février 2011 à 18:36 +0100, "Martin v. Löwis" a écrit :
Am 26.02.2011 17:44, schrieb Antoine Pitrou:
Le samedi 26 février 2011 à 08:38 -0800, Daniel Stutzbach a écrit :
On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 6:32 PM, Nick Coghlan firstname.lastname@example.org wrote: Would it be possible to name "trunk" as "2.x" instead? Otherwise I could see people getting confused and asking why trunk was closed, and/or not the same as "default".
Can we just get rid of "trunk" altogether? It's history is a strict subset of the 2.7 branch's history, isn't it?
Named branches are exclusive, they can't be a subset of each other ;) (in other words: 2.7 starts where trunk stops; trunk changesets are strict ancestors of 2.7)
But is there a need to have any changesets in the "trunk" named branch? Couldn't the historical changesets just be in an unnamed branch, being ancestor of so many named branches?
There is no such thing as an "unnamed branch". What would "hg branches" show? An empty space?
I'd like to prevent people from mistakenly committing onto the trunk, which would be easiest if trunk didn't exist at all.
Well, the push you request in the todo should do the trick. We can also call it "legacy-trunk", too :)