Disclaimer

The content of this blog is my personal opinion only. Although I am an employee - currently of Imagination Technologies's MIPS group, in the past of other companies such as Intellectual Ventures, Intel, AMD, Motorola, and Gould - I reveal this only so that the reader may account for any possible bias I may have towards my employer's products. The statements I make here in no way represent my employer's position, nor am I authorized to speak on behalf of my employer. In fact, this posting may not even represent my personal opinion, since occasionally I play devil's advocate.

See http://docs.google.com/View?id=dcxddbtr_23cg5thdfj for photo credits.

Thursday, July 05, 2012

Merge node common to several branches

Noticing a pattern:

  hg branch b
  ... edit b ...
  ... test ...
  hg merge -r default
  ... test ...
  hg ci -m 'merged default into b'
  hg update -r default
  hg merge -r b
  ... diff -r default -r b
  ... test ...
  hg ci -m 'merged from branch b into default (after already merged default into branch b, i.e. identical node in both default and branch b'

This seems suboptimal.

It seems to me that instead of creating the same node, wrt content, on two branches, in this case default and b, we could create it once.  And link it in to both branches.

Key: must remember that the node is on both branches, so that afterwards can continue working separately.

I.e. could have updated to the merge node M but be on the default branch.  Or on the b branch.  (Or possibly both?)


It may be common to end a branch at such a merge node.  Perhaps commn enough to be the default.  But not univeral.  

1 comment:

Andy "Krazy" Glew said...

http://mercurial.selenic.com/wiki/DrawingTextDAGs conatins some of Mercurial's conventions for drawing graphs.

Many of the things I am talking about map to items in this notation: e.g. crossing merges. And prime marks for related changesets.