On Tue, 2009-04-07 at 21:18 +0000, James Westby wrote:
> Ah, so it's creating a default branch remotely that doesn't support
> stacking? Is that because the local branch format doesn't support
> stacking?
A bug somewhere. we're meant to upgrade under certain conditions; but
the presence of partially stackable environments has prevented it.
> I'm surprised that I ended up with a local branch format that doesn't
> support stacking. I was sure we had bumped the default by now.
On Tue, 2009-04-07 at 21:18 +0000, James Westby wrote:
> Ah, so it's creating a default branch remotely that doesn't support
> stacking? Is that because the local branch format doesn't support
> stacking?
A bug somewhere. we're meant to upgrade under certain conditions; but
the presence of partially stackable environments has prevented it.
> I'm surprised that I ended up with a local branch format that doesn't
> support stacking. I was sure we had bumped the default by now.
Not yet, no.
-Rob