[PATCH 3 of 3 branch --new] branch: deprecate creation of branches without --new

Augie Fackler raf at durin42.com
Thu Apr 16 11:22:25 CDT 2015


On Apr 16, 2015, at 12:20 PM, Mads Kiilerich <mads at kiilerich.com> wrote:

> On 04/16/2015 11:43 AM, Augie Fackler wrote:
>> On Apr 16, 2015, at 11:37 AM, Mads Kiilerich <mads at kiilerich.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> On 04/15/2015 06:36 PM, Augie Fackler wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 05:14:52PM -0400, Mads Kiilerich wrote:
>>>>> # HG changeset patch
>>>>> # User Mads Kiilerich <madski at unity3d.com>
>>>>> # Date 1429132330 14400
>>>>> #      Wed Apr 15 17:12:10 2015 -0400
>>>>> # Node ID 97c2568dfc479675b96b84ea3b6ae7ec55f5560c
>>>>> # Parent  f832f9a6081a18eb3f54e1f2718ab753cff9d50c
>>>>> branch: deprecate creation of branches without --new
>>>>> 
>>>>> --new is more explicit and not treacherous for git users.
>>>> How? --new does nothing to help git users understand that branches are
>>>> global and permanent. This series seems like it'll make the problem
>>>> for git users worse, not better.
>>> I have been told (when other changes were rejected) that git users expect "$toolname branch foo" to switch to a branch foo - they don't expect it to create a new branch.
>> Whomever told you that is very much mistaken.
> 
> http://selenic.com/pipermail/mercurial-devel/2014-August/061199.html
> 
>> I disagree. The problem is a terminology one, not a “what command do I run” one. VCS users are, as a rule, very used to cargo-culting command strings, and if someone is trying to "make a new branch”, that’s what they’ll do, even if what they wanted was a bookmark. For git refugees, the big problem is that their mental construct of a branch matches up with bookmarks, not branches.
> 
> So it would be better to "rename" the 'branch' command to 'namedbranch' or the shorter and less branch-like 'name'?

Probably, but then you're tiptoeing towards adding another thing in the glossary hg users need to know, which I'm not sure is better.

> 
> Anyway, besides the constant "do you really want to use named branches" annoyance, I (or my users) just want a way to revive ancestor branches without having to use --force. Would you be fine with --new if it were as verbose as the existing branch creation?

Yes, that seems fine.

> 
> /Mads

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 801 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://selenic.com/pipermail/mercurial-devel/attachments/20150416/570d2468/attachment-0001.pgp>


More information about the Mercurial-devel mailing list