Concatenating changesets

[Peter Arrenbrecht]

> > A changeset should be a single well-defined change. Which means it
> > generally should be small. Combining changesets is generally (but not
> > always) a step in the wrong direction.
> >
>
> I agree with this completely. However, I often find that a given range
> of changesets need to be considered as a set or they make little sense
> on their own (i.e the logical steps to developing a larger change). This
> brings me to a feature that I think would be really useful: some concept
> changeset 'grouping'.

Couldn't tags be used as a poor man's substitute for this, as in tag
"feature-xy" means this is where feature xy is complete? Although I do
realize this might clutter up the tag space a bit.
-peter