The torrential rains are causing havoc with my internet, so apologies for replying out of sequence. On Sep 30, 2010, at 07:17 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
Sorry for following up to myself, but this typo might be very confusing:
Stephen J. Turnbull writes:
Barry Warsaw writes:
You can have "co-located" branches[1] which essentially switch in-place, so if a branch is changing some .c files, you won't have to rebuild the whole world just to try out a patch.
In Mercurial these are called "named branches", and they are repo-local (by which I mean they must be part of the DAG). Named branches used to have some inconvenient aspects relevant to standalone
s/relevant/relative/
branches (they could be fairly confusing to other users if pushed before being merge to mainline).
It's not obvious to me that Mercurial style named branches would work well here ... it would take a little thought to design an appropriate workflow, anyway.
I should note that I don't particularly like colocated/named branches. I personally much prefer separate directories for each feature or bug I'm working on. It helps me keep track of what I'm doing. I have a fast machine so recompiling all of Python is no big deal. I do like having the choice of being able to colocate or not, based on my own workflow preferences. But I suppose with Mercurial I can just have multiple copies of the same branch in different directories, and just start out with "hg update -C foo" -Barry