On Monday, July 07, 2014 06:00:30 PM Russel Winder wrote: > On Mon, 2014-07-07 at 08:43 -0700, William Deegan wrote: > > Done > > -Bill > > > > On July 7, 2014 at 5:30:06 AM, Russel Winder ([email protected]) wrote: > > > > Can someone reassign issue 1924 to me? > > Thanks. Hopefully despite being 6 years on, we can get a test together, > cure it and create a pull request. I will create a feature clone since > to handle this as that seems to be the Mercurial Way – Mercurial > branches being not so mercurial as they are in Git!
Mercurial branches are rather odd, assuming that you mean using the "hg branch" command. You can have a set of changesets that have the same branch tag but aren't topologically related. (It takes work to pull that off, but you used to be able to do it.) "hg bookmark" is closer to the git branch command, AFAICT; at least in the ways that you'd actually want to use it. (I haven't used hg that much lately, preferring bzr and actually using git at work.) You'd still have to deal with the fact that hg really doesn't like having multiple heads in a repo while git couldn't care less. There are rich opportunities to re-enact the various "git vs. hg" flame wars on the web that I'd prefer to avoid. I'll concede that git is powerful and fast, but it's a PITA to work with until you get its internals internalized. So to speak and IMO. -- Mark A. Flacy
_______________________________________________ Scons-dev mailing list [email protected] http://two.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-dev
