elmentary (watson): merge (named) branches and/or bookmarks

[Arne Babenhauserheide]

Uwe Brauer writes:

>>>> "Arne" == Arne Babenhauserheide <arne_bab at web.de> writes:
>
>    > Uwe Brauer writes:
>
>    >> Sigh, for me this is another reason to concentrate on named branches,
>    >> since they behave much more as I expect them to behave. (Besides the
>    >> evolve extension makes named branches much more flexible.)
>
>    > Same for me. And I wish I could tell hg-git to use named branches — but
>    > I know that this doesn’t work.
>
> Why not? I mean the convert extension would allow to convert named
> branches to bookmarks, so I presume that could be used for pushing named
> branches as if they were bookmarks. I guess the other way around would
> be the messy one. If someone added a git branch to the git repo and you
> pull, seems impossible to convert that to a named branch.

You’d have to somehow add a branch, and maybe even change it on the fly
(via evolve or so, which would change commit-hashes) and it would not
really represent git history because it would have more information.

So it would be great to have, but I think it’s conceptually impoossible
to get right (if we include sharing between the hg repos as a
requirement).

Best wishes,
Arne
-- 
Unpolitisch sein
heißt politisch sein
ohne es zu merken
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 800 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.mercurial-scm.org/pipermail/mercurial/attachments/20161218/0a9b0b31/attachment.asc>