Remove a named branch

[Bela Babik]

>  From what I have read about named branches, they are not meant to be
>  used for local experiments like that since they -- as you have found out

I found them perfect for local experiments.

>  -- "pollute" the history afterwards. They are more for long term
>  development lines ("stable" vs. "devel").

That's why I would not push a named branch into a central repository.

The result of the final merge of a named branch can be easily transfered to the
default branch with mq or a revert (maybe, I would prefer to have a
"disconnected" merge,
where I can detach the result from one of the parents).

>  In your case, when you want to refactor some code in its own branch,
>  then instead of creating a named branch, you can simply make a local
>  clone.

Which is not always an option.

teki