Re: New branch name with no other changes

Richard Levitte <[email protected]> writes:

> In message <[email protected]> on Fri, 10 Jun 2011 16:40:59 +0200, Thomas Keller <[email protected]> said:
>
> me> Am 10.06.2011 16:26, schrieb Hendrik Boom:
> me> > Actually, the approve command worked fine, though it took a few moments 
> me> > to determine the right revision ID.  Maybe approving the revision in the 
> me> > current workspace should be an option on that command?  I wouldn't want 
> me> > it to be the default: too easy to approve the wrong thing by accident.
> me> 
> me> You could use
> me> 
> me> 	mtn approve -b new.branch w:
> me> 
> me> for the very same purpose and don't have to figure out the current rev
> me> id at all.
>
> But that places the current revision in the new branch as well.  Was
> that Hendrik's intention, or was the intention that the next revision
> should end up in the new branch?

He said "it worked fine" :)

> What you'r forgetting, by the way, is that approve will not place the
> workspace in the new branch, so the next commit after that will end up
> in the original branch.  

That is my process; I always create a new branch by adding a cert to an
existing revision, then checkout the branch into a new workspace, while
the current workspace remains on the original branch.

I maintain a strict correlation between workspace directory name and
branch name; I _never_ change the branch in an existing workspace (I
just find that confusing, and I often want to diff between branches to
see what has changed).

As Tony said, "with monotone you get to choose" :).

-- 
-- Stephe