Yeah I much preferred Mercurial from that standpoint. And branches there were correctly named branch. But you kinda, sorta, can get "what should have been cal

Yeah I much preferred Mercurial from that standpoint. And branches there were correctly named branch. But you kinda, sorta, can get "what should have been called branches but don't exist in Git" by using named tags when you "start a branch" (a real branch I mean, not a Git "branch"). > Mercurial branches don't work like this: they are actually stored as part of each commit, so even with ambiguous commit graphs each commit still has a well-defined branch. I wonder which operation would not be possible with Git had Git gone that way. And hence I wonder too what's that operation that Git can do and that Mercurial can't. Honestly switching from Mercurial to Git this weird "branch that aren't branch at all" was the single most WTF feature of Git.