From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 05:27:51 GMT
Subject: Re: branch description
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).