Hi Uwe, > Ok thanks very much for running this test. The graph you got is pretty > confusing at least for me. So there is no magic without magic, no named > branches without named branches.
Here’s a simpler version: * (master) (HEAD -> master) |\ | * (foo) (foo) | | | * (foo~1) | | * | (master~1) |/ | * (foo~2) As you an see, the commit at the bottom is misattributed to foo, but it was created on master. > So please forget my proposal. There seems no way to have the precise > information of named branches and the flexibility of bookmarks at the > same time. This is not quite true :) What you can do is using mutable hg. That gives you a way to rename branches and others can simply follow up via `hg evolve`. That gives named branches the flexibility of bookmarks (but is still experimental - though that’s been the state for years). See https://www.mercurial-scm.org/wiki/EvolveExtension Best wishes, Arne
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Mercurial mailing list [email protected] https://www.mercurial-scm.org/mailman/listinfo/mercurial
