3 ms·

> But with mercurial branching where more like forks with different directories. That's bzr, not Mercurial. Mercurial has always had more advanced branches tha

• mhitza 5y ago
  It's been more than 10 years since I've used mercurial, so I had to try and dig up old documentation (hard to do with my Google-Fu), anyway I've found an older HN post that discuses the separate directory thing back in 2009 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1013320 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1013320 I'm sure a lot has changed in that timespan, and maybe it was a bit more of a nuanced situation wrt branching, but the pain points are the things I can only vaguely recall at this point.
  • andrewshadura 5y ago
    That post may have been discussing it, but it was not based on the reality. Having multiple clones is just one of the workflows, one Git users also frequently employ. If anything, Mercurial’s branching model has always been richer than that of Git, since even when if didn’t have Git-style branches (bookmarks), it supported named branches and anonymous branches, which already allowed for a wider variety of workflows than Git ever did.