<div style="margin-left: 40px"><br></div><div style="margin-left: 0px">So I think named branches make sense here. Bookmarks are really for potential branches, experimental features, for example, for easier navigation for the developer's convenience. Named branches, on the other hand, are better for posterity reasons.</div>
<div><br></div>~/santa<br>
<div class="gmail_quote"><div class="im">On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 9:55 AM, Antoine Pitrou <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:solipsis@pitrou.net" target="_blank">solipsis@pitrou.net</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
There is no such thing as an "unnamed branch". What would "hg branches"<br>
<div><br></div><div>But as I dig deeper, I see that there is only one unnamed branch, and it actually does have an implicit name: "default".</div><div><br></div><div>It appears Mercurial supports at least three different kinds of branching: cloning (similar to Bazaar), bookmarks (similar to git), and named branches. Â So a named branch can contain more than one branch.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Were there reasons for going with named branches over bookmarks? Â PEP 385 discusses only cloning and named branches. Â I'm just curious, not trying to start a long discussion. :-)</div></div><br>-- <br>
<font color="#888888">
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4