Bookmarks in core?

[Martin Geisler]

Isaac Jurado <diptongo at gmail.com> writes:

> On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 10:20 AM, Didly Bom <didlybom at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> However, there is a question that pretty much everybody makes at some
>> point, which is: "why does mercurial create a new commit when you add
>> a tag?". The answer makes sense once you understand how mercurial
>> works, yet it often leads to more questions such as "Then, why don't
>> you lose your tags when you update to an old revision?" (because
>> mercurial treats the .hgtags file as a special case) or "If I tag an
>> old revision, why does the tag commit appear at the top of the
>> history?" (because the commit is created as a child of your previous
>> current revision), etc. Not to mention the complaints such as "This
>> makes the history graph more complex", etc.
>
> You forget a critical case: hg clone -r tagX.  The new repository will
> NOT recognize tagX.  So that is quite annoying when you do clone based
> branching, like we do at work.  But we have to live with it because
> Mercurial is the most conveninent tool we found for the job.

That is something that bookmark-based tags could also solve since they
live outside of the history and so we can transfer just the bookmarks we
want on clone.

-- 
Martin Geisler

Mercurial links: http://mercurial.ch/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://selenic.com/pipermail/mercurial-devel/attachments/20101201/a37d7312/attachment.pgp>