3 ms·

> inability to permanently delete branches If your workflow fits better with git-style branches, you should use Mercurial bookmarks, not Mercurial named branch

by sampo 12y ago

> inability to permanently delete branches If your workflow fits better with git-style branches, you should use Mercurial bookmarks, not Mercurial named branches. Mercurial even tells you: (branches are permanent and global, did you want a bookmark?) every time you create a named branch.

loxs 12y ago
Well, IMHO, nowadays this classifies as bad design. It may have been the better design, but currently git's nomenclature is the standard and not complying to it will only hurt mercurial.
- ngoldbaum 12y ago
  Mercurial and git were initially released within a couple of weeks of each other. To change terminology now would break ten years of backward compatibility.
  - loxs 12y ago
    I understand that, but my point is still valid. Mercurial is not "guilty" about this, but certainly suffers
Skinney 12y ago
I used bookmarks back when I used Hg, which is a couple of years ago, but I had some problems with them. From time to time bookmarks wouldn't update remotely. This made me always push twice, to make sure the bookmark was updated. They've hopefully fixed that now, but it was one of my main gripes with Hg. That, and that the Jira version we switched to didn't support bookmarks.