What's next for pbranch?

[Peter Arrenbrecht]

On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 4:17 PM, Martin Geisler <mg at lazybytes.net> wrote:
> Peter Arrenbrecht <peter.arrenbrecht at gmail.com> writes:
>
>> On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 5:16 PM, Waldemar <waldemar at beechwoods.com> wrote:
>>> I am contemplating using pbranch to deal with staggered release cycle at a
>>> large corporation that I am contracting for.  My primary concern is the
>>> stability of pbranch and the likelihood of it surviving in the next few
>>> years.  Can anyone comment on its chances of making it into the set released
>>> along with mercurial?  I could offer some development cycles if it could
>>> help in the process.
>>
>> Well, I guess this is the kind of lobbying it's going to take. So far,
>> the Mercurial crew has not shown any interest in accepting pbranch
>> into hg/ext, despite an offer to convert its doctests into hg-style
>> tests.
>
> I must admit that I've never tried it since I don't really do much
> colloboration with others on patches.
>
> However, I've always thought of pbranch as the most well-polished
> third-party extension out there (wow, it has documentation!) and I would
> like to include it in Mercurial proper.

Martin, thanks. However, last time this came up seriously, Matt wasn't
happy about having two different ways for managing patches (mq and
pbranch) in the endorsed extensions. Don't know what his stance is
now. I still think they differ sufficiently in their approaches and
aims.
-parren