On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 10:14 PM, Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info> wrote: > Chris Angelico wrote: > >> On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 6:21 PM, Marko Rauhamaa <ma...@pacujo.net> wrote: >>> "Frank Millman" <fr...@chagford.com>: >>> >>>> You are encouraged to make liberal use of 'branches', >>> >>> Personally, I only use forks, IOW, "git clone". I encourage that >>> practice. Then, there is little need for "git checkout". Instead, I just >>> cd to a different directory. >>> >>> Branches and clones are highly analogous processwise; I would go so far >>> as to say that they are redundant. >> >> But rather than listening to, shall we say, *strange* advice like >> this, Frank, you'll do well to pick up a reliable git tutorial, which >> should explain branches, commits, the working tree, etc, etc, etc. > > Isn't this "strange advice" standard operating procedure in Mercurial? I'm > not an expert on either hg or git, but if I've understood hg correctly, the > way to begin an experimental branch is to use hg clone.
I don't know Mercurial well enough to be able to say, but definitely branching is a very normal thing there, too. And since merging can be done only within a single repo, ultimately you need to end up with branches in one repo (rather than separate repos) if you're going to combine them in any way. So even if you do start some experimental work in a separate clone, you're probably going to need to end up with it as a separate branch in the same repo if you ever publish it, for instance. ChrisA -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
