Subject: Re: branch description

From: Junio C Hamano <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 22:27:51 -0700

Jakub Narebski <[email-masked]> 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).