Why you don't want to allow disabling "branches are global and permanent, did you want a bookmark"?
adrian at cadifra.com
Thu Aug 9 15:48:52 CDT 2012
On 2012-08-09 21:57, Augie Fackler wrote:
> Yes, there is: the (hypothetical git) user will get angry that the
> branch is permanent, and decide Mercurial is a useless piece of trash
> and never look back.
I think you still haven't delivered any convincing argument why we
should care about such angry stubborn users B at the expense of annoying
current users A.
Also, I note again that B are users who obviously have refused to read
anything about Mercurial branches (specifically, they obviously applied
a command before having read 'hg help branch') and who seem to think
they can blindly apply concept X named Y from git on Mercurial.
What's more, your "shoot in the foot" argument is a complete red
herring. If you start using a tool that's supposed to store your data
but you refuse to read anything before using it, then you have clearly
done something wrong. Blame yourself.
I wouldn't be surprised if there are more concepts from git, which can't
be blindly applied to Mercurial without causing havoc. Do we now have to
study git and warn on a pile of other command usages as well? For
example, do we now have to warn that 'hg pull' is not going to do a
merge as git's pull does? No.
Mercurial is not git. It's as simple as that.
Trying to start making Mercurial look like git is a dead end (IMHO).
Even if it's only by assuming that someone who executed "hg branch" most
likely made an error (and telling them "hey, you most likely wanted
More information about the Mercurial-devel