[Python-Dev] Mercurial migration: progress report (PEP 385)

[Paul Moore]

2009/7/4 Brett Cannon <brett at python.org>:
>> > While I really like the idea of using named branches for each release so
>> > that there is a single py3k branch that contains all relevant history
>> > for
>> > every release, I think we should start simple and go with cloned
>> > branches.
>> > That way the workflow does not radically shift from what we do now for
>> > svn
>> > to start. Once the conversion is done and people are comfortable with hg
>> > we
>> > can then discuss moving towards a named branch approach.
>>
>> I don't think the cloned branches is much simpler than the named
>> branches approach, in several ways. For example, populating the branch
>> part of a sys.whatever value is significantly harder. Also, if you
>> follow a useful tagging approach, doing cloned branches means that
>> release tags aren't available on trunk/main/default. That seems like a
>> step backwards.
>
> I personally prefer named branches, but that's just me and I am not about to
> force my preferences on everyone. Guess we just have to see if others have
> opinions against named branches.

Personally, I prefer clones, as it seems to me that Mercurial named
branches are not quite what people generally think of when they think
of "branches", in some subtle respects. I could be wrong, as I don't
personally use named branches. However, there's been a small thread on
distutils-sig recently with a new Mercurial user complaining that he's
got confused and messed up a repository. Without digging particularly
deeply, it appears that the problems were caused by confusion over
named branches.

FWIW, the Mercurial book
(http://hgbook.red-bean.com/read/managing-releases-and-branchy-development.html)
describes named branches with the comment "If you're more in the
“power user” category (*and* your collaborators are too)" (author's
emphasis). I'm not sure we want to require contributors to be "power
users" of Mercurial...

Paul.

PS Sorry for responding to an old thread - I couldn't locate more
recent discussion, although I thought there had been some.