Using named branches (`hg branch`) for feature branches isn't recommended.

[John D. Mitchell]

Um, what's wrong with full clones?

John

On Jul 5, 2011, at 11:23 , Peter Bourgon wrote:

>> using named branches (`hg branch`) for feature branches isn't recommended.
> 
> I hashed this out on IRC a week or two ago. As far as I'm aware, there
> is no alternative to named branches for feature branches which provide
> all of the following characteristics:
> 
>  1. Allow feature branches to be cleanly made from the default branch.
>  2. Allow developers to push their feature branches to a central
> repo, without polluting other developers' default branch. (ie. "hg
> pull ; hg update default" should never put feature-branch code in your
> working directory.)
>  3. No push -f required.
> 
> As far as I'm aware: Anonymous branches violate #3. Bookmark-based
> solutions violate #2. I got a variety of suggestions which revolved
> around the concept of doing primary development work from non-default
> branches, which is not my team's workflow and violates #1.
> 
> Is there actually an alternative? If not, I have to admit that it's
> rather frustrating to hear this line repeated by Hg devs.
> 
> Cheers,
> Peter.
> _______________________________________________
> Mercurial mailing list
> Mercurial at selenic.com
> http://selenic.com/mailman/listinfo/mercurial