Hello,

I think your branching model is nice. However, I have a comment regarding your statement:

It is important to reiterate here that the branch you just created is actually a full-fledged repository. You work with it just like you would any other repository. That starts with cloning. When I am working in a branch, I usually just move my copy of the "trunk" repository out of the way by renaming the folder on my machine (e.g., kiln -> kiln-trunk), and then clone the branch repository to the old trunk location. That way I don't have to change anything in my development environment.

As I understand, on your servers you perform a "hg clone" to hardlink as much as possible (saving disk space). Here, suggesting cloning from the remote server I think is not the best idea. You could just do locally (the user, on his/her computer) a "hg clone foo foo-featureX" modifying .hg/hgrc to point to the branched repo, so disk space is also saved in user's hard disk.

Hello,

I think your branching model is nice. However, I have a comment regarding your statement:

It is important to reiterate here that the branch you just created is actually a full-fledged repository. You work with it just like you would any other repository. That starts with cloning. When I am working in a branch, I usually just move my copy of the "trunk" repository out of the way by renaming the folder on my machine (e.g., kiln -> kiln-trunk), and then clone the branch repository to the old trunk location. That way I don't have to change anything in my development environment.

As I understand, on your servers you perform a "hg clone" to hardlink as much as possible (saving disk space). Here, suggesting cloning I think is not the best idea. You could just do locally (the user, on his/her computer) a "hg clone foo foo-featureX" modifying .hg/hgrc to point to the branched repo, so disk space is also saved in user's hard disk.