named branches vs. seperate repo for vendor branch

[Dirkjan Ochtman]

On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 01:37, Neal Becker <ndbecker2 at gmail.com> wrote:
> But I'm wondering about another aspect.  One other advantage to seperate
> repo is that if I ever want a repo that has just the vendor history, it's
> already right there.  So that raises a question.  Is there some way to
> obtain just the vendor repo with history using the named branch approach?
> That is, suppose the vendor branch is called 'upstream', while my patches
> are on default.  Can I produce a new repo that has only the vendor branch
> and no history of default?

hg clone repo#upstream

With the obvious difference that the resulting repo will have
"upstream" in the branch field on every cset.

Cheers,

Dirkjan