feature proposal: named branches without named branches

[Uwe Brauer]

    > Uwe Brauer writes:


    > Same for me (though I don’t have much hope given the history I have with felipec).

Aha, so you know him already, he pops up regularly in google on the top
list concerning git mercurial questions, but he seems to be a bit militant.

    > Especially the following by others is a huge step forward (and past
    > git): You can actually rewrite history collaboratively as long as you
    > did not publish it yet.

Ok so here is the million dollar question: suppose you have already
pushed to some server so the phase is public,

Would the following work?
I change phase back to private
I apply the evolve commands you wrote below and then
push --force
so that the repo gets synchronized my local one


(and all the users who already pulled meanwhile are well they are  bit  annoyed.._

    > Since this gives me an excuse to test evolve myself again, gladly ☺

Great thanks!
    > You simply amend the changeset which initially set the branch and then
    > evolve the history:


    > The result is this:

    > @  changeset:   5:a514636a4ef4
    > |  branch:      stable
    > |  tag:         tip
    > |  user:        Arne Babenhauserheide <bab at draketo.de>
    > |  date:        Thu Nov 17 23:51:03 2016 +0100
    > |  summary:     stable2
    > |
    > o  changeset:   4:15b134eb1bcd
    > |  branch:      stable
    > |  parent:      0:4c3d391118f6
    > |  user:        Arne Babenhauserheide <bab at draketo.de>
    > |  date:        Thu Nov 17 23:50:57 2016 +0100
    > |  summary:     stable
    > |
    > o  changeset:   0:4c3d391118f6
    >    user:        Arne Babenhauserheide <bab at draketo.de>
    >    date:        Thu Nov 17 23:50:38 2016 +0100
    >    summary:     1

Very cool, thanks, I will definitely need that.

Uwe