Jakub Narebski <jnareb@xxxxxxxxx> 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). -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
