|
|
|
|
|
by pseudonym
4061 days ago
|
|
I started with and loved Mercurial as a DVCS, and it still has some QoL commands that Git requires some hoop-jumping to get at, but ultimately the deciding factor was the inability to permanently delete branches. Since branched dev work would fairly regularly have generic names or the names of the developer working on it, it would always end up being forked and merged instead of branched and merged, which led to a ridiculous number of headaches in our build system. We still use mercurial for most of our repositories just because they're dated and not likely to see more than a handful of commits a year, but most of our active development work has already converted to git. |
|
If your workflow fits better with git-style branches, you should use Mercurial bookmarks, not Mercurial named branches.
Mercurial even tells you:
every time you create a named branch.