On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 3:40 PM, Fabrizio Giudici <[email protected]> wrote: > On 02/11/2011 08:31 AM, Dale Wijnand wrote: >> >> Also Mercurial has named branches (which are simply called branches >> in the Mercurial space) which git doesn't have, but I think are better >> alternatives to git's light branches in some cases (for instance I would >> use them for hotfix commits and release candidate fix commits). >> > Can somebody please explain how git works without named branches? I mean, I > often use named branches for 'branch-per-feature', where the branch gets the > name of the RFE/bug. How would I do that with git?
I don't understand the statement "git doesn't have named branches." If you simply mean that you are associating a name to a branch, git definitely has that. It appears that hg stores this branch name with the commit, something git does not do. I think this is an artifact of something that was referenced earlier. Branches exist while they are needed in git, but are easily deleted as soon as you feel like it. (Typically after having moved all commits to the "master" branch.) As soon as this happens, there is no record that a branch ever existed. (That I am aware of.) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.
