On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 5:04 PM, ZedroS <[email protected]> wrote: > I'm currently looking at mercurial for some maven managed projects. It > looks like named branches would be the way to go there (more on it at > the end of this mail for those interested), but I read on the > mercurial wiki that named branches are to be avoided, but without > providing much details. Up to now, the only drawback spotted is having > many old branches in the branches view, when switching, but it doesn't > look intriguing...
Wrong list. You would probably get more response posting to [email protected]. That said... named branches should generally be long-lived, because they are forever. You can't remove them and you can't rename them. > So, in the end, is there any "strong" reason to avoid named branches ? > Would 1000 of them kill performance or something similar ? No, but it would make the "hg branches" command really annoying. The thing that kills performance is having lots of heads. So if you create 1000 named branches that never get merged, that will affect performance. (Although less in Mercurial 1.4, now that we have persistent tag caching.) Greg -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "MercurialEclipse" 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/mercurialeclipse?hl=.
