1.0 approaches

[Georg]

2008/2/8, Peter Arrenbrecht <peter.arrenbrecht at gmail.com>:
>
> On Feb 8, 2008 9:17 AM, Georg <gwk.rko at googlemail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > 2008/2/8, Brendan Cully <brendan at kublai.com>:
> > > 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'd be inclined to discourage their use strongly in 1.0 (maybe
> relegating
> > > them to debugcommands) unless they are improved. I think they will
> tend to
> > > result in bad feelings, whereas most of the rest of mercurial is warm
> > > and fuzzy.
> >
> > I believe you are blurring things.
> >
> > It is true that you cannot easily drop things that you played with.  I
> once
> > triggered a long thread on that.  I was proposing to add metadata to
> > branches (branches in the sense of a part of the version tree, not
> > necessarily a named branch) so they can be marked as "obsolete" and
> maybe
> > garbage collected. The thread was not conclusive because throwing away
> stuff
> > in a distributed repository is not easily possible, and mabe not
> desirable.
> >
> > But this all holds for simple forks of the tree in the same way as for
> named
> > branches. You just cannot remove.
> >
> > Don't blame the branch feature for that.  The branch feature only allows
> you
> > to add a descriptive name to your experimental forks.  And that's a very
> > good thing.
>
> If I understand this matter correctly, that is not entirely true.
> Named branches intermingle commits that are ready for pushing with
> others that aren't. So pushed changes have hashes that reference still
> unfinished and potentially failed experiments. It's only because of
> this intermingling that you cannot simply drop failed experiments
> without having to rewrite history, as you can with true clones.
> -peo
>

The same intermingling can be seen if you don't use a named branch but
continue to use branch "default" for your unfinished experiments.

The branch name is just a tag for a "branch" of the tree. There is no harm
by using the tag, it is the intermingling of unfinished and mature work in
the same repo which causes harm, potentially.

--
Regards,
Georg.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://selenic.com/pipermail/mercurial/attachments/20080208/95696360/attachment.htm