A Guide to Branching in Mercurial

[Alexander Schatten]

thanks, I think I get the point.

However, I wonder, if it would not be a good idea to add a feature here. I mean: I believe it is not a bad idea to keep also a crappy branch for documentation issues. But when I merge it (even dummy merge) it appears as if that this one was, in effect properly merged, when it actually was not.

Would you not think, that it would be a good idea to add a feature that "names" such branches "dead end"; like "hg branch --dead-end [optional name]" then they would be seen in the tree view as branches (which they are), would not clutter the named branches, would not appear as regular merges, but as what they are: dead ends. In merge behaviour, they would behave like named branches though.


Bad idea?