Suppose I have several commits in local repo, and some uncommited changes in working dir. After hg pull, hg update, I get a couple of new changesets from central repo which create a new head in local
I have a mercurial repository with two branches (default and 开发者_C百科branch1) I have a fix that I wanted to do on default but I made it in branch1. I don\'t want to merge from branch1 to default.
As my company begins to further explore moving from centralized version control tools (CVS, SVN, Perforce and a host of others) to offering teams distributed version control tools (mercurial in our ca
Ok, I\'ve yet to see this popup as a combined question on mercurial, but it\'s something I\'ve noticed recently.
I\'ve used Mercurial for years locally, but now we are doing a pilot of switching over from Subversion at my company.
in SVN it was possible to work in several peop开发者_JS百科le on one working copy of a repository. SVN prompted for a username and password and commits were attributed to the user which logged in even
Is th开发者_Go百科ere a way to prevent users from committing without using --force when a branch is closed?
We use tortoise hg with Kiln. In my vs 2010 c# project there are some files that are part of the repository but I would like tortoise hg to ignore them when I make a commit.
I\'ve one question about general DVCS, including Git and Hg. In both Git and Hg merge tracking is done at the \"commit\" level instead of the \"file/directory\" level.
I\'ve just started with Mercurial, I have a \'central\' repository on Bitbucket which I cloned onto 开发者_如何学编程one machine and made changes and committed and pushed. I then cloned from Bitbucket
加载中,请稍侯......