One key difference is hg design philosophy is ALL THE COMMITS ARE EVERYWHERE. You don't wind up with private commits after a pull/push in general. I.... don't see the problem with that in an environment where you want to ensure changes don't fall off the map. You *can* push-pull just one branch at a time if you so want, but I've never quite gotten the reasoning behind that.
So I am working on a large feature and a small feature. Fu pulls from my clone to submit them to the main repo. Are you saying that Fu can't easily push the small feature to the repo without pushing my large feature-related commits. Or that she can't do that without having to be insanely careful in the future?
With respect to namespace collisions: Yes, you could go out and name something the same branch. Why would you?
We can't control what all our devs do. What's stopping two devs from sillily naming their branch FixBug? ( Yeah, I know, social fix, but still. People will do silly things. And with mercurial we cannot correct that after the fact ( well, we could just have them extract a diff and commit it that way ( like we have been doing ), but ) -- so we just screwed people who spent ( to them ) a lot of precious time over.
I think one possible assumption here that you have made for our workflow is that it's okay for all developers to have commit bit to the main repo. I cannot speak fully ( I am not one of the powers that be ) , but I don't believe that is going to be possible.
I think another assumption ( with the branching/bookmark workflow ) is that we want all the work showing up in the main repo. Again, I cannot speak for that truthfully, but I don't believe that is wanted.
no subject
So I am working on a large feature and a small feature. Fu pulls from my clone to submit them to the main repo. Are you saying that Fu can't easily push the small feature to the repo without pushing my large feature-related commits. Or that she can't do that without having to be insanely careful in the future?
We can't control what all our devs do. What's stopping two devs from sillily naming their branch FixBug? ( Yeah, I know, social fix, but still. People will do silly things. And with mercurial we cannot correct that after the fact ( well, we could just have them extract a diff and commit it that way ( like we have been doing ), but ) -- so we just screwed people who spent ( to them ) a lot of precious time over.
I think one possible assumption here that you have made for our workflow is that it's okay for all developers to have commit bit to the main repo. I cannot speak fully ( I am not one of the powers that be ) , but I don't believe that is going to be possible.
I think another assumption ( with the branching/bookmark workflow ) is that we want all the work showing up in the main repo. Again, I cannot speak for that truthfully, but I don't believe that is wanted.