inactive branches? (simple question)

[Neal Becker]

Dirkjan Ochtman wrote:

> On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 13:26, Peter Hosey <boredzo at gmail.com> wrote:
>> It has no heads; some other branch merged in from it.
> 
> To be exact, it has no topological heads.
> 
> Also, we've been moving away from the notion of inactive branches (as
> it's rather confusing), so it should be less obvious in recent
> versions. What version is this?
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Dirkjan

1.6.2