mercurial - Best way to manage Source Control for slightly different versions of the same codebase -


i've seen question asked several different ways , each time, answers workarounds or ways not have maintain 2 or more different versions. however, don't think there workarounds given environment (visual foxpro). maintain 2 different repositories:

  • live - code in production
  • proof - identical live testing ground of number of new features staging area changes live

i don't see way handle situation branches because proof spends (if not all) of it's time looking more fork. example, there large section of code drastically different live we've been toying around year now. there's 10 minor features different live in various stages of approval.

there lots of days when i'm diff'ing , merging between 2 repositories ask myself, why can't branches of same codebase. don't see how that's possible. proof living breathing thing of it's own need able compile , maintain separately live (though realize there's nothing in last statement precludes single codebase, dilemma).

am right proof more of fork , therefore has maintained in separate repository?

btw, not matters question, vcs of choice mercurial.

the way in shop use default , stable branches keep code released (live) separate stuff being worked on.

in addition named branches, have clone each new feature/addition substantial. we're bit more comfortable having multiple heads on default branch.

keeping state of code has been released production in own named branch helps eliminate accidents. instead of being able mess live repo pushing isn't ready, have explicitly merge changes on live branch.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

c# - How to set Z index when using WPF DrawingContext? -

razor - Is this a bug in WebMatrix PageData? -

visual c++ - Using relative values in array sorting ( asm ) -