Re: [Monotone-devel] Re: linus talk on git

[Brian May]

>>>>> "Bruce" == Bruce Stephens <address@hidden> writes:

    Bruce> I'm not particularly bothered about keeping redundant work
    Bruce> (which in git could vanish); I am worried about ending up
    Bruce> with zillions of branches which have names we no longer
    Bruce> like and which were only of relevance for a few days
    Bruce> anyway.  And should we not use branches so much, I worry
    Bruce> about ending up with experimental forks where someone's
    Bruce> deleted files, which then just get in the way.

Same here. Things change. Maybe calling a branch x.y.z.Feature_X is no
longer appropriate, as decision was made that this was a bad way to
implement Feature X, but an excellent way of implementing Feature_Y
instead.

The new and rewritten Feature_X might go into a branch called
x.y.z.Feature_X.2, x.y.z.Feature_X might turn into x.y.z.Feature_Y,
and people continue to get confused over this obsolete x.y.z.Feature_X
branch.

Oh maybe, management decide it is no longer politically correct to
call it Feature_X but Feature_Better_X or something instead.

    Bruce> (I agree that policy branches may well solve all these
    Bruce> issues---that's certainly the kind of thing they're aimed
    Bruce> at making possible.  But I think we want to change soonish,
    Bruce> and I don't see policy branches being usable in the

As there any references on how policy branches will solve these
problems?

    Bruce> relevant timescale.  (I'm currently not considering
    Bruce> mercurial because git's MinGW port seems OK, and because I
    Bruce> don't have a clear understanding of mercurial's local
    Bruce> branches: they look a bit too new, and not enough like
    Bruce> git's nicely simple idea.))

How does mercurial cope?
-- 
Brian May <address@hidden>