Re: branch description
- From
Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
- Date
- Apr 16, 2008, 05:27 UTC
- Message-ID
- <7vfxtmtlm0.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org>
- In-Reply-To
- <m3abjushvs.fsf@localhost.localdomain>
Jakub Narebski <jnareb@gmail.com> writes:
> Please, let's don't repeat Mercurial mistake of placing unversioned > information (such as branch names in case of Mercurial, or branches > descriptions in this case) in-tree, i.e. version it.
Is it really a "mistake" in Mercurial's context?
I thought that their named branches do have defined "starting point", and it is not a mistake at all for them to version "from this point on, this lineage of history is associated with this symbolic name (which is a branch)".
It probably does not make sense in the context of git where a branch is defined to be "illusion" (at least currently).