Problems converting from git to mercurial

[Matt Mackall]

On Thu, Dec 13, 2007 at 02:31:55PM -0600, 0x138^2 wrote:
> Matt Mackall wrote:
> >On Thu, Dec 13, 2007 at 02:12:54PM -0600, 0x138^2 wrote:
> >>If this is indeed the case then I would argue that for 95% of
> >>cases the choice in branch name for 'a' could be made arbitrarily
> >>during the conversion without any dire consequences.  For the
> >>other 5%, going back to work in a's ancestry after the convert
> >>could result in a surprise for the developer who was expecting
> >>a different branch name.
> >
> >If we can make an arbitrary choice, why make a choice at all?
> 
> Because loosing 70+ named branches after a convert
> kind of sucks.  :)  I do understand the reasons behind
> this design decision now though.

I'm fine with labeling branches where we actually know a name, it's
the guessing that's a problem.

-- 
Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time.