Note that there are some explanatory texts on larger screens.

plurals
  1. POMercurial Repository structure for features, stable releases, etc
    text
    copied!<p>I will be more specific with a question if I need to be, or make this into a community wiki if you all think that's where it fits, but my question is:</p> <p>My dev team has recently started using Mercurial (moved from subversion) and we love it so far. I'm wondering if there is a 'best practices' resource out there about repository architecture. What I'm interested in is, what is the best way to leave a stable copy of the repo (for shipping/emergency bug fixes) while working on features and new versions. I have read a lot about named branches vs. cloned repositories and I'm hoping some of you hg guys can shed some light on what works for your team. </p> <p>What is easier to merge after a feature has been tested and is ready for the next release? Are there any serious drawbacks to the 2 methods I have mentioned? Are there other repo management strategies out there?</p> <p>We are nearing the deployment of our 2.0.0 release and I'm looking to start fresh once it is out with a new way of working with hg.</p> <p><strong>Let me rephrase to hit on some basics that I'm still struggling with</strong> - Let's say I finish 2.0.0 tomorrow... I want to start work on 2.1.0, what do I do? Clone my repo, name it "working/projects/widgets2.1" and keep rolling along, having my "workin/projects/widgets2.0" sitting there ready to be used in bug fixing situations?</p> <p>Further, if the customer calls and says there is a bug and the widget machine is shaking and smoke is starting to billow, do I pop open widgets2.0, fix the bug, deploy to server, then commit/push? Do I then go back over to widgets2.1 and pull/merge that bug fix?</p>
 

Querying!

 
Guidance

SQuiL has stopped working due to an internal error.

If you are curious you may find further information in the browser console, which is accessible through the devtools (F12).

Reload