Taking the plunge...

[Dennis Brakhane]

On Sun, Dec 4, 2011 at 1:08 PM, Steve Dyer <Steve.Dyer at homeserve.com> wrote:
> So are you saying that bookmarks would be better for feature branches?  How
> do you maintain the tracebility further down the line? I thought bookmarks
> were non persistent and confined to the local repository they were made in.

Mercurial's bookmarks are comparable to git branches. Mercurial's
named branches have no
equivalent in git.

Bookmarks used to be local only, but with 1.9(?) they can also be
pushed and pulled. You are
correct, however, that with bookmarks you can only indirectly trace
which branch contained which
feature. But I think in practice it's not much of a problem, as the
commit messages should give
you a pretty good idea. Also, git users don't seem to have a problem
with it, otherwise git would
probably have grown a "permanent branch name" feature by now. If your
merges contain the
feature/bookmark name in the commit message like git does ("merge
branch 'foobar'"), it should
work.