Hg names the branches and keeps the name. The other day I was looking at a sequence of commits trying to figure out where they came from and knowing the branch would have helped.
mg always kept history though. Git has always encougaged squashes and rebase to keep a linear history so that information was lost.
We all want history information to be lost. (Unless you are running a version control system that timestamps every keystroke.) Reasonable people may disagree on what information should be kept.
While true I still find it strange that git still doesn't address this which hg has always used to say why it is better. There is something to it that git fans who have never had good brancing don't know what they are missing.
mg always kept history though. Git has always encougaged squashes and rebase to keep a linear history so that information was lost.