Fredrik wrote:
On Mon, Jan 03, 2011 at 05:10:26PM +0000, corvid wrote:
Fredrik wrote:
On Mon, Jan 03, 2011 at 12:54:09PM -0300, Jorge Arellano Cid wrote:
* Can corvid make another repo in the same server? (e.g. for the port to fltk-1.3)
Isn't it better to just make an other branch in the same repo? Can't everybody with commit access do that? That should make bug fix sharing easier, right?
How much does that complicate usage? Is it pretty much 1) name a new branch and 2) use the same hg commands as usual but add some branch argument?
I actually don't know, that's why I asked. I'm not that familiar with hg but with git. In git it would be very easy, and hg and git is very alike according to branching if I recall correct.
However a hg guru should answear that question.
http://hgbook.red-bean.com/read/managing-releases-and-branchy-development.ht... makes it sounds like either a new repository or a new branch would be a fairly standard response to our situation.
In git you define your branch when you clone the repository and thereafter use git as usual. (of course you can change branches after a clone etc.).
The main point is, that a bug found in dillo with fltk 2.0 that is also in dillo with fltk 1.3 should be able to be fixed with the same commit. This is known as the double maintenance problem.
One commit is visible in both branches?