3 ms·
Why not use standard mercurial branches? At least you're able to say in which branch commit was done and draw a clean history for them.
by k_bx 13y ago
Why not use standard mercurial branches? At least you're able to say in which branch commit was done and draw a clean history for them.
- natrius 13y agoI do use standard Mercurial branches, and I vastly prefer Git's model. I ask because there might be a better way to use them that I've overlooked.
- masklinn 13y agoMercurial's equivalent to git branches (movable pointer to a commit rather than embedded commit metadata) is bookmarks.
- fhd2 13y agoFrom what I've seen, bookmarks are not "branches" in any sense, really just pointers to commits. I've tried several times to use bookmarks for feature branches (read: branches developed in parallel to each other and the default branch). I thought I just can't figure it out, but it really seems impossible at this point.
- masklinn 13y ago> From what I've seen, bookmarks are not "branches" in any sense, really just pointers to commits. That's exactly what git branches are.
- michal8181 13y agoBranches in git are exactly pointers to graph. If you delete such a pointer you loose your branch. Even worse - with next git gc you will loose your data as parts of graph with no pointer is assumed to be dead by git.
- k_bx 13y agoWhat do you mean by "git model"? Creating branch per feature? But that's exactly what I do in mercurial!