Perl 6 - the future is here, just unevenly distributed

IRC log for #darcs, 2015-04-15

| Channels | #darcs index | Today | | Search | Google Search | Plain-Text | summary

All times shown according to UTC.

Time Nick Message
00:26 mizu_no_oto joined #darcs
02:05 carter sm: oh?
02:09 mizu_no_oto joined #darcs
02:21 Riastradh joined #darcs
05:11 alexei joined #darcs
05:48 alexei joined #darcs
07:04 alexei joined #darcs
09:15 alexei joined #darcs
11:13 mizu_no_oto joined #darcs
11:21 mizu_no_oto joined #darcs
12:56 alexei joined #darcs
18:01 * Heffalump appears
18:31 favonia joined #darcs
19:01 fr33domlover joined #darcs
19:59 alexei joined #darcs
20:07 Riastradh joined #darcs
21:31 Riastradh joined #darcs
22:52 c74d joined #darcs
23:33 burp joined #darcs
23:39 dolio joined #darcs
23:42 dolio So, I finally got a conflict that I had to resolve, and went and read about conflicts, and it made me think a bit.
23:43 dolio My conflict was basically: I have a development branch and a released branch. The version is bumped in development, but then I created a new release which also bumped the version. So the version bumps conflict.
23:45 dolio But, this seems exactly like the situation that is to be avoided on the conflicts page. I don't want to merge the development branch into the release branch.
23:45 dolio So, what do people do instead of this?
23:48 dolio I guess I could separate the version bumps from the rest of the patches and not push them back into development, since they're irrelevant?
23:54 dolio I guess I'm still interested in alternate schemes, since having long running branches that are only ever merged one way into another is common at work with Mercurial, and I wonder what would be done instead if that's a problem.

| Channels | #darcs index | Today | | Search | Google Search | Plain-Text | summary