[PATCH 2 of 4] clone to master bookmark if available

Martin Geisler mg at lazybytes.net
Sun Nov 13 09:38:52 CST 2011


Arne Babenhauserheide <arne_bab at web.de> writes:

> Am Donnerstag, 10. November 2011, 09:44:02 schrieb Victor Suba:
>> The gittish way is that the bookmark's pulled from the remote aren't merged
>> into your local
>> namespace - they're tied to the alias of the remote, and they're treated as
>> foreign heads that
>> are ignored in push/pull commands.
>
> That’s one of the things I don’t like about git, so it’s not something
> I would want replicated in Mercurial.
>
> In Mercurial you normally synchronize everything, so there’s no danger
> of accidently forgetting to push something important. If you want to
> only synchronize a part, you say so via hg pull -r <rev>. In that case
> all revs not needed for that rev are ignored.
>
> Mercurial is not git, and I don’t want it to be git, because I
> consider the behavior of Mercurial as far more useful than the one of
> git.

This difference is the key to why Git users can work with several
feature branches in a single repository and why Mercurial normaly use
seperate clones.

Feature branches are a *super powerful* concept, but Mercurial fights
you if you try to use them. It basically tries to make you merge all the
heads into a single head -- no matter if you have put bookmarks on them
or not.

I think it's a real loss for us that we don't really support working
with feature branches like this.

(If you're concerned about getting all the branches, then I'm sure clone
will keep giving you everything. So that's a non-issue.)

-- 
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/20111113/3d0ce8d2/attachment.pgp>


More information about the Mercurial-devel mailing list