On Wed, 16 April 2008, Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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. I'm sorry, I meant here "tags" not "branch names"... I think... > Is it really a "mistake" in Mercurial's context? If we are talking about tags support in Mercurial, I think it is mistake or at least bad design decision. Tags are, and should be, unversioned (or at least versioned separately) but propagated (or rather propagatable). Mercurial offers either in-tree .hgtags, which are always automatically propagated (not merely propagatable); but this mechanism is by default versioned, and Mercurial does complicated dance to get reasonable tags semantic. And there is [theoretical] problem of merging .hgtags file; perhaps solved by specialized merge strategy for this file. Alternatively Mercurial offers so called local tags, which are not versioned, but not propagated (and AFAIK non propagatable). So yes, it is a bad design in my opinion. > 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)". What happens if there is branching point _after_ such "branch naming tag"? Unless branch names are purely local and non-propagatable, and Mercurial can use local revision numbers or something like this... I find this CVS legacy to branching (doesn't Subversion use also something like that) to be stupid. > It probably does not make sense in the context of git where a branch is > defined to be "illusion" (at least currently). BTW. another tool that has yet another idea of what "branch" is is Monotone, which AFAIK understands branch in reflog sense, via Monotone's signature signatures ;-) P.S. Cc-ed mercurial mailing list, to give them chance to respond to those "accusations"... if it is not subscribe only... -- Jakub Narebski Poland -- 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
