[ANNOUNCE] new extension: localbranch

[Benoit Boissinot]

On 8/26/07, Bela Babik <teki321 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > a branch is part of the history (the branch name is recorded in the
> > changelog) and so they are immutable. localbranches are really like
> > clones inside a repo, this is usually what people expect from branches
> > (not creating a new working copy when you want to work on something
> > else).
>
> I would use separate clones for -devel and -stable.
>
But they won't have a name, and you might want to put the name under
revision control.

> > I would say that a branch (aka named branch) is for long lived
> > branches that have a meaning (like -devel / -stable), whereas
> > localbranch are for short lived development for people who don't like
> > to clone.
>
> Not necessarily. You can use named branches and then merge the final
> version with the "revert  trick" in one changeset and push that
> particular changeset.
>
But you'll lose the intermediate history.

regards,

Benoit