Branchident extension for Mercurial 1.4

[Sune Foldager]

Adrian Buehlmann wrote:
> That doesn't answer my question. You still have to specify
> a branch name for the "has no branch name" changesets.

I don't see why we need those; all our changesets should reside on some
branch.

> That branch name could be "none", for example. But the question then
> is: why can't that name *not* be "default"?
> So the basic question is: what is your motivation for not having
> a default branch?
> What are you trying to achieve (or avoid)?

We have a branch name policy in place, which uses multi-part names
separated with /, such as core/dev, core/stable etc. We have no need or
use for a branch called 'default', and it would be unclear what team it
belonged to as well.

> You can rename branches to anything. So you could rename your
> "don't have a branch name" branches to let's say "none".
> The question is: what behavior do you expect from a branch
> that has its branch name removed?

I don't know; I guess I would never remove a branch (without setting a
new one), so as long as the branchident code doesn't treat 'default' in
a special way, everything should be fine :)

/Sune