Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by KirinDave 6458 days ago
Mercurial's metaphor for local branching is awkward. Git's metaphor is not, and most people go batty for it. That's a pretty good reason to change.

I wouldn't use git if it didn't have cheap inline local branching. It is the Killer Feature.
2 comments
apgwoz 6457 days ago
> Mercurial's metaphor for local branching is awkward.

That may be true (honestly, I don't know), but I haven't yet needed to maintain different branches of projects I'm working on and so it's a non-issue at this point. If at some point it becomes an issue, and I find Mercurial lacking, then of course I'll take a closer look at git, who probably does it more appropriately.

link
mleonhard 6457 days ago
It's a good idea to make a branch for each release. Then you can easily look at the code that's in production and make patches.
link
silentbicycle 6457 days ago
Mercurial also has cheap local branching, though to my understanding it is easier to close out branches that have been merged back in / abandoned on git. The mercurial developers are working on this, though.
link