[OT] Question about Git branches

[Robert Kern]

On 2014-09-16 13:14, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> Chris Angelico wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 6:21 PM, Marko Rauhamaa <marko at pacujo.net> wrote:
>>> "Frank Millman" <frank at chagford.com>:
>>>
>>>> You are encouraged to make liberal use of 'branches',
>>>
>>> Personally, I only use forks, IOW, "git clone". I encourage that
>>> practice. Then, there is little need for "git checkout". Instead, I just
>>> cd to a different directory.
>>>
>>> Branches and clones are highly analogous processwise; I would go so far
>>> as to say that they are redundant.
>>
>> But rather than listening to, shall we say, *strange* advice like
>> this, Frank, you'll do well to pick up a reliable git tutorial, which
>> should explain branches, commits, the working tree, etc, etc, etc.
>
> Isn't this "strange advice" standard operating procedure in Mercurial? I'm
> not an expert on either hg or git, but if I've understood hg correctly, the
> way to begin an experimental branch is to use hg clone.

Yes, but this is due to different design decisions of git and Mercurial. git 
prioritized the multiple branches in a single clone use case; Mercurial 
prioritized re-cloning. It's natural to do this kind of branching in git, and 
more natural to re-clone in Mercurial.

-- 
Robert Kern

"I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma
  that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had
  an underlying truth."
   -- Umberto Eco