>I think the concept of named branches in mercurial are hugely flawed and were the final nail in the coffin of why I migrated over to git. And I never looked back.
How does having more information available ever hurt you?
Now, fair enough, the fact that mercurial expects branches to be unique might be annoying if you have the tendency to call all branches 'bugfix', but you seem to imply that simply having the branch name in which the commit was originally created as metadata on it would be somehow bad.
>git checkout does what it says on the tin: it checks out a branch or paths to the working tree.
'git checkout is good because checkout means the thing that git checkout does'
riiiiight
How does having more information available ever hurt you?
Now, fair enough, the fact that mercurial expects branches to be unique might be annoying if you have the tendency to call all branches 'bugfix', but you seem to imply that simply having the branch name in which the commit was originally created as metadata on it would be somehow bad.
>git checkout does what it says on the tin: it checks out a branch or paths to the working tree.
'git checkout is good because checkout means the thing that git checkout does' riiiiight