> On Oct 14, 2016, at 1:29 PM, Erik van Zijst <erik.van.zi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> * on a named branch but no topic
>> * on a topic but no named branch (so default branch)
> 
> Why would a topic imply that it is on the default branch? I don't
> think I see that. In my mental model a topic is really just a branch,
> just like any named branch. What does it mean for a topic to be "on
> the default branch"? What does that facilitate?
> 
> If one insists on some form of named-branch-context, then wouldn't
> that simply be the named branch that the topic was originally forked
> off of? I don't think I see the need for that information to be
> carried forward in every topic commit.

I agree.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

_______________________________________________
Mercurial-devel mailing list
Mercurial-devel@mercurial-scm.org
https://www.mercurial-scm.org/mailman/listinfo/mercurial-devel

Reply via email to