[...] a good rule of thumb is to use branch names sparingly and for rather longer lived concepts like "release branches" (rel-1, rel-2, etc) and rather not for short lived work of single developers

So I think named branches make sense here. Bookmarks are really for potential branches, experimental features, for example, for easier navigation for the developer's convenience. Named branches, on the other hand, are better for posterity reasons.


On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 10:40 AM, Daniel Stutzbach <> wrote:
On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 9:55 AM, Antoine Pitrou <> wrote:
There is no such thing as an "unnamed branch". What would "hg branches"
show? An empty space?

I understand now why I was confused.  I had previously read the sentence "Both Git and Mercurial support unnamed local branches." at

But as I dig deeper, I see that there is only one unnamed branch, and it actually does have an implicit name: "default".

It appears Mercurial supports at least three different kinds of branching: cloning (similar to Bazaar), bookmarks (similar to git), and named branches.  So a named branch can contain more than one branch.

Were there reasons for going with named branches over bookmarks?  PEP 385 discusses only cloning and named branches.  I'm just curious, not trying to start a long discussion. :-)

Daniel Stutzbach

Python-Dev mailing list