Why bare 'hg update' needs behaviour change

[Marcin Kasperski]

> An online repository uses bookmarks to develop some features to avoid
> using named branches. There is actually the @ bookmark and one
> experimental-feature bookmark that only developers must use to avoid
> basic users using it.

Leaving apart the general design discussion: in such a scenario I would
seriously consider using SINGLE named branch, called experimental (and
various bookmarks and heads on this branch to mark actual work items) –
plus merging finished work to default (and merging default back to
experimental to keep it up to date). This avoild pollution of maaany
named branches, but clearly separates development from stable and keeps
hg update sane.

Regarding general thing, I think that there is more promise in making
branches sane (able to fade away, then disappear) than in making
bookmarks sane (able to stay where they should and cooperate with update
properly). Those sane branches are to be called topics IIRC, not sure
how far advanced is the work on them.