feature proposal: named branches without named branches

[John Jefferies]

On 18/11/2016 08:51, Arne Babenhauserheide wrote:
> Nicolas Pinault writes:
> Testing just needs you to use it and to report any problems you
> experience. Often not having deep skills is actually an advantage for
> that :)
>
> Time is another matter… maybe you’ll have a project at some point where
> it can come in helpful - for example writing a patch you’ll have to
> revise a few times.

I have used the evolve extension every day for several years now and 
find it wonderful for the work I do. While I accept that there may be 
rough edges that the devs want to clear up before it moves from 
experimental, I don't see them in the work I do. If people urged it to 
move from experimental as it is now, it's my belief that documentation 
explaining the limitations is maybe all it needs.

Also, I'm sure you know, TortoiseHg supports most of the evolve 
commands, and is very good at displaying the history of obsolete and 
troubled changesets. I can't be the only one who uses these features so 
it must have had lots of testing by now. :-)

OK, one problem I've had is where I wanted to evolve a branch containing 
a merge. I had to manually rebase stuff, but that was no more difficult 
than if I wasn't using the evolve extension. There were problems in the 
early days that have been fixed, such as difficulties working out why a 
changeset was troubled.

FWIW. The commands I regularly use are:
commit --amend     (lots)
rebase
histedit
evolve
prune
touch

John