4 ms·

>Mercurial is a DVCS my bad. 5+ years since i worked with Mercurial. Digging deep into painful memories, my Mercurial PTSD from that time is absence of in-repo

>Mercurial is a DVCS my bad. 5+ years since i worked with Mercurial. Digging deep into painful memories, my Mercurial PTSD from that time is absence of in-repo branching - need to clone which is a killer for very large repo we had and no partial commits - again a killer aggravated by the above mentioned absence of in-repo branches. Both issues made working with large repo unreasonably and unnecessary hard.

pnathan 13y ago
hg certainly has had branches since 2008 at least. What do you mean by partial commit? I can guess but I would rather know. :-)
sampo 13y ago
I am sure Mercurial has always had (named) in-repo branches, so you were using Mercurial in strange manner.
- twic 13y ago
  There was a time when the developers advised using parallel clones rather than named branches, though. I never really understood why. These days, the standard practice is probably to use bookmarks, which are more or less like Git branches.
  - rbehrends 13y ago
    These days, the standard practice is probably to use bookmarks, which are more or less like Git branches. No. You have the choice to use either named branches or bookmarks, and which one you choose is a matter of your workflow. Note that even a Git-like workflow does not necessarily require the use of bookmarks. Mercurial is still designed under the assumption that people will use named branches and the Git-like aspects of bookmarks exist to ease transition from Git: http://www.selenic.com/pipermail/mercurial/2014-January/046465.html http://www.selenic.com/pipermail/mercurial/2014-January/0464... Personally, I use Fossil-like private branches [1] in order to facilitate local work that I may still want to reorganize before pushing it to a shared server; I use bookmarks solely for local tags. [1] Emulated by putting a named branch in the secret phase. I actually have a simple extension to automatically make all branches that start with a dot (e.g, ".tempstuff") secret.

pnathan 13y ago

hg certainly has had branches since 2008 at least. What do you mean by partial commit? I can guess but I would rather know. :-)

sampo 13y ago

I am sure Mercurial has always had (named) in-repo branches, so you were using Mercurial in strange manner.

twic 13y ago
There was a time when the developers advised using parallel clones rather than named branches, though. I never really understood why. These days, the standard practice is probably to use bookmarks, which are more or less like Git branches.
- rbehrends 13y ago
  These days, the standard practice is probably to use bookmarks, which are more or less like Git branches. No. You have the choice to use either named branches or bookmarks, and which one you choose is a matter of your workflow. Note that even a Git-like workflow does not necessarily require the use of bookmarks. Mercurial is still designed under the assumption that people will use named branches and the Git-like aspects of bookmarks exist to ease transition from Git: http://www.selenic.com/pipermail/mercurial/2014-January/046465.html http://www.selenic.com/pipermail/mercurial/2014-January/0464... Personally, I use Fossil-like private branches [1] in order to facilitate local work that I may still want to reorganize before pushing it to a shared server; I use bookmarks solely for local tags. [1] Emulated by putting a named branch in the secret phase. I actually have a simple extension to automatically make all branches that start with a dot (e.g, ".tempstuff") secret.