From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Seth Forshee Subject: Re: HG branches Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2008 19:59:24 -0600 Message-ID: <20080207015923.GA14226@ubuntu-workstation> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from py-out-1112.google.com (py-out-1112.google.com [64.233.166.182]) by alsa0.perex.cz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C78F24429 for ; Thu, 7 Feb 2008 03:00:02 +0100 (CET) Received: by py-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id w49so4463933pyg.36 for ; Wed, 06 Feb 2008 18:00:00 -0800 (PST) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: alsa-devel-bounces@alsa-project.org Errors-To: alsa-devel-bounces@alsa-project.org To: Jaroslav Kysela Cc: Takashi Iwai , ALSA development List-Id: alsa-devel@alsa-project.org On Wed, Feb 06, 2008 at 03:06:44PM +0100, Jaroslav Kysela wrote: > BTW: Does anyone know if it's possible to just pick a patch from a HG > branch to another? STG (Stacked GIT) has nice 'stg pick @' > command for this. hg update -C dest-branch hg transplant -b source-branch revision But I must say that using branches in hg is rather painful. We tried it for a while at my workplace and switched to using cloned repos for branches (mostly). We had several instances of bad things happening because of the way hg handled branches, and when those things got pushed it was often very difficult to get the repo back to a decent state. In my opinion git handles branches much better than hg does. Cheers, Seth