named branches vs. seperate repo for vendor branch

[Hans Meine]

Op den Dingsdag 23 November 2010 Klock 08:34:52 hett Dirkjan Ochtman schreven:
> 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.

Does that work if you branch the vendor branch off 'default'?  I don't think 
so, but that's how I interpret Martin's drawings here:
  http://bitbucket.org/mg/mercurial-talk/downloads/vendor-branches.pdf
For this use case, it would help to "hg update null" before creating the 
vendor branch.  (Martin, do you want to change your presentation?
Alas, it would make it less simple to understand..)

If you really want to share the vendor branch between multiple projects, I 
think I would use a subrepo.  OTOH, the vendor branch might be project-
specific anyway.

Ciao,
  Hans