title: Mercurial - Branching with Clone or Branching with Named Branch
body: <p>Currently, I am using CVS to keep track of my SourceForge project. I has the following requirements.</p>
  
  <ul>
  <li>I need to maintain a <strong>stable Trunk</strong>. Whenever there is a critical bug being reported by users, I may fix immediately, and release it within a few days.</li>
  <li>I need to perform extensive new features enhancement, huge code refactoring on and off. This may take several weeks to several months. Hence, what I usually do, is I will perform the new features enhancement and huge code refactoring within a <strong>branch</strong> (Or more branches if there are more features). Only after enough testing, I will merge them back to stable Trunk.</li>
  </ul>
  
  <p>I am behind a poor internet connection most of the time. Recently, I am planning to migrate to a distributed source control - Mercurial , so that I can work offline sometimes.</p>
  
  <p>I read the following article. I believe I can use the following ways to preserve my previous workflow under CVS's branching.</p>
  
  <ul>
  <li><a href="http://stevelosh.com/blog/2009/08/a-guide-to-branching-in-mercurial/#branching-with-clones" rel="nofollow">Clone</a></li>
  <li><a href="http://stevelosh.com/blog/2009/08/a-guide-to-branching-in-mercurial/#branching-with-named-branches" rel="nofollow">Named Branch</a></li>
  </ul>
  
  <p>However, I cannot see any difference from end user point of view. May I know which mythology you guys usually apply? and why?</p>