1.0 approaches

[Brad Schick]

On 2/7/2008 9:52 PM, Matt Mackall wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-02-07 at 21:36 -0800, John D. Mitchell wrote:
>   
>> On Feb 7, 2008 9:17 PM, Bela Babik <teki321 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>     
>>>> In my opinion, named branches in their current form do more harm than good.
>>>>         
>>> ...
>>>       
>>>> I'd be inclined to discourage their use strongly in 1.0 (maybe relegating
>>>>         
>>> I strongly disagree. It is true, that it is more like a dynamic
>>> tag than a branch, but it helps to a lot.
>>>       
>> Then changing the naming to make that reality clear would be okay to you?
>>     
>
> The time for such non-backward-compatible changes has long since past so
> there's not much point to this conversation.
>   

How about moving the existing command to an extension that is off by 
default? Anyone who is currently using this feature successfully 
probably knows what they are doing and could easily re-enable for 
backwards compatibility. New users would be less likely to stumble into 
problems (and be more likely to read the details if they enable it).

-Brad