|
Size: 938
Comment:
|
Size: 981
Comment: converted to 1.6 markup
|
| Deletions are marked like this. | Additions are marked like this. |
| Line 3: | Line 3: |
| In a CVS-like world, you will typically have one central repository; let's call it the "main line". This correspond's to CVS's notion of the "trunk". | Mercurial allows multiple WorkingPractices. In a CVS-like world, you will typically have one central repository; let's call it the "main line". This corresponds to CVS's notion of the "trunk". |
| Line 7: | Line 7: |
| Developers have direct {{{ssh}}} access (see ["SharedSSH"]) to the central repositories on a server, and push their changes directly from their local clones into the appropriate repositories. | Developers have direct {{{ssh}}} access (see [[SharedSSH]]) to the central repositories on a server, and push their changes directly from their local clones into the appropriate repositories. |
CVS-like working practice
Mercurial allows multiple WorkingPractices. In a CVS-like world, you will typically have one central repository; let's call it the "main line". This corresponds to CVS's notion of the "trunk".
Repositories tend to be long-lived, and the "authoritative branches" are clones of the central repository.
Developers have direct ssh access (see SharedSSH) to the central repositories on a server, and push their changes directly from their local clones into the appropriate repositories.
Someone may be responsible for "back-porting" changes from a branch to the main line. They do this by pulling changes from the branch and the main line into a local repository, merging appropriately, then pushing back to the main line.
When the main line reaches a release point, someone creates a clone on the server at the appropriate revision, and people who need to work on that branch clone it, then start pushing their changes back.