Michael Jay Lippert <[email protected]> writes: > Other than creating lots of names, what is the disadvantage of using > named branches over unnamed branches and bookmarks?
Some people see the persistent names as a big problem. You can however easily remove the branch names from 'hg branches' by closing each branch when you are done with it. You can of course reopen a closed branch, just make a new commit with that branch name. > Unnamed branches and bookmarks seems like more work as you'd have to > keep moving the bookmark (I haven't used bookmarks before, so I'm > unsure of how they actually work). > > Also there is some advantage w/ named branches of being able to find > all of the changesets related to a particular feature because they are > all on the named branch (from a historical view when going back to > find out what changes were made to implement that feature). > > pbranches was mentioned as an extension whose goal was a more > "polished" experience than mq. Do others agree and is it under active > use and development? Yes, the pbranch extension is one of the most polished third-party extensions I know of. Peter has written nice tutorials and good documentations, not to mention an elaborate test system. > Would current mq users ever want to switch to using pbranches? I'm > asking, because if true I'll try to keep an eye on how that > development is going. I hope to learn and use pbranches in the future but has so far sticked with mq. -- Martin Geisler aragost Trifork Professional Mercurial support http://aragost.com/mercurial/
pgp8rOrySkyqO.pgp
Description: PGP signature
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This SF.net Dev2Dev email is sponsored by: Show off your parallel programming skills. Enter the Intel(R) Threading Challenge 2010. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-thread-sfd
_______________________________________________ Tortoisehg-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/tortoisehg-discuss
