[qsera]

To me mercurials branching is closer to the development process and preserves more information, because it records the original branch a commit was made.

Git does not have such concept. That is a trade off and that trade off works great for projects managed like Linux kernel. But for smaller projects where there is a limited number of people working, the information preserved by mercurial could be very valuable.

It also had some really interesting ideas like change set evolution, which enabled history re-writing after a branch has been published. Don't know its current status and how well it turned out to be..

[awesome_dude]

Just FTR - git /can/ store that information, but it requires human input.

If you rebase the feature branch into the main branch THEN follow it up with the merge commit that records the branch name you store the branches (that have been made a part of main) and can see where they are in your log

Mercurial's notes can become cumbersome if there are a large number in the repository, but, obviously, humans can sort that out if it gets out of hand