I am not an experimented user of SCM tools, even though I am convinced of their usefulness, of course. I used some obscure commercial tool in a former job, Perforce in the current one, and played a bit with TortoiseSVN for my little personal projects, but I disliked having lot of .svn folders all over the place, making searches, backups and such more difficult. Then I discovered the interest of distributed SCM and I chose to go the apparently simpler (than git) Mercurial way, still for my personal, individual needs. I am in the process of learning to use it properly, having read part of the wiki and being in the middle of the excellent PDF book.
I see often repeated, for example in Mercurial working practices, "don't hesitate to use multiple trees locally. Mercurial makes this fast and light-weight." and "for each feature you work on, create a new tree.". These are interesting and sensible advices, but they hurt a bit my little habits with centralized SCM, where we have a "holy" central repository where branches are carefully planned (and handled by administrators), changelists must be checked by (senior) peers and must not break the builds, etc. :-) Starting to work on a new branch takes quite some time...
So I have two questions in the light of above:
How practical is it to do lot of clones, in the context of IDEs and such? What if the project has configuration/settings files, makefiles or Ant scripts or shell scripts or whatever, needing path updates? (yes, probably a bad idea...) For example, in Eclipse, if I want to compile and run a clone, I have to do yet another project, tweaking the Java build path, the Run/Debug targets, and so on. Unless an Eclipse plugin ease that task. Do I miss some facility here?
How do that scale? I h