Any requirements to post a ("DVCS branching with Mercurial") presentation in http://mercurial.selenic.com/wiki/Presentations?

[Colin Caughie]

On 01/02/2013 5:15 PM, Matt Mackall wrote:
> On Wed, 2013-01-02 at 15:25 -0800, Colin Caughie wrote:
>> On 12/31/2012 1:11 PM, dukeofgaming wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, Dec 30, 2012 at 9:19 PM, Kevin Bullock <kbullock
>>> +mercurial at ringworld.org> wrote:
>>>          On 28 Dec 2012, at 3:00 PM, dukeofgaming wrote:
>>>          >
>>>          >
>>>          > - Do these presentations have to be run by anyone in order
>>>          > to be posted or can I just edit the wiki and link to my
>>>          > presentation
>>>          
>>>          
>>>          Feel free to add it yourself.
>>>
>>>
>>> Cool
>>>   
>>>          
>>>          > - What do you think of it? (if you can spare the time, it
>>>          > would be nice to have the expert's proofreading)
>>>          
>>>          
>>>          I can't tell, since I don't see a link to the presentation
>>>          here. ;)
>>>
>>>
>>> Oh crap, don't you hate it when it happens?, haha:
>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.slideshare.net/dukeofgaming/dvcs-branching-with-mercurial
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> This is generally a nice presentation, the one thing I'd dispute is
>> referring to the "clone to branch" strategy as "lazy/incorrect". My
>> understanding is that branching by cloning is not only correct but the
>> default way to branch in Mercurial, and existed long before any of the
>> other methods - moreover it's used by the Mercurial devs themselves
>> (correct me if I'm wrong).
> We switched to using named branches for 1.4 back in 2009.
>
> But everyone should absolutely understand "clone to branch" first...
> because it's conceptually what happens every time you clone and commit:
> you're working on a branch of the project that's distinguished only by
> its location on your local disk.
>
I understand that the hg repo uses named branches to distinguish the 
stable release branch from the new development branch (as far as I can 
see there are exactly two named branches in the repo, "default" and 
"stable"), but isn't it also true that individual trusted developers 
maintain their own clones (i.e. branches) for new feature work, which 
are then pulled and merged into the "master" repo?