1.0 approaches

[Dustin Sallings]

   Can you describe the key differences between git branches and hg  
branches?

   From my experience and what I've gathered here, it sounds like we  
need just a couple more tools and features.  My list:

   Tracking the start of a branch needs to be easy (perhaps branches  
and/or branch can show this).

   log needs to allow me to show only a single branch.  I'm guessing  
there's very little work involved in this.  I haven't looked yet, but  
I need it, so I may take a look today.

   push, pull and bundle need to be able to follow or ignore ancestry  
lines rather than patches in a series.  strip already does something  
like this, so I assume it's possible.

   Maybe we'd want an option to transplant to strip branch info when  
rebasing.

   Is there anything else obviously missing?

-- 
Dustin Sallings (mobile)

On Feb 8, 2008, at 0:06, Masklinn <masklinn at masklinn.net> wrote:

>
> On 8 Feb 2008, at 05:55 , Brendan Cully wrote:
>
>> On Thursday, 07 February 2008 at 18:49, Matt Mackall wrote:
>>> There are still some areas with rough edges - named branches and  
>>> case
>>> sensitivity come to mind. Improvements there that aren't too  
>>> invasive
>>> will be considered, but these aren't currently going to be  
>>> considered
>>> showstoppers.
>>
>> In my opinion, named branches in their current form do more harm
>> than good.
>> People use them expecting them to behave more like in-repository
>> clones
>> that they can play with and then drop, and usually become frustrated
>> with them, but only after they've permanently cluttered their
>> repositories.
>>
>> They also interact badly with clone and older clients, as well as
>> having
>> more benign UI warts.
>>
>
> I strongly agree with your take on it, and it's even more flagrant
> (and frustrating) when comparing mercurial's branches and git's.
> _______________________________________________
> Mercurial mailing list
> Mercurial at selenic.com
> http://selenic.com/mailman/listinfo/mercurial
>
>