I'm a little bit new to the distributed version control systems, so I was reading Mercurial manual and what I understood is the tag feature can be used to mark release numbers, example a tag called v1.0 and another v1.1, etc.
As for branches they are to be used to add new features without disturbing other developers then merge it with the default branch after everything is OK.
Is that right?
Please advise. Thanks.
Sounds like you're mostly getting answers from git folks, who almost understand Mercurial too.
The core difference is that in git the branch name isn't an integral part of a changeset -- it's just where the changeset happens to be now. In mercurial a Named Branch's name is part of it forever. This leads folks who know git more than they know Mercurial to say one of two not-quite correct things:
hg branches
output can grow quite large.All of this is spelled out beautifully in Steve Losh's Guide to Branching in Mercurial, as originally answered by OJ (which I upvoted).
In summary:
Of course, either tool can be used in either fashion -- it's more about norms than it is about "correct".
Have a read of the following to help clarify your understanding (Mercurial related):
If you love us? You can donate to us via Paypal or buy me a coffee so we can maintain and grow! Thank you!
Donate Us With