Subject: Re: [boost] [git] Mercurial?
From: Sergiu Dotenco (sergiu.dotenco_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-03-20 09:06:13
On 20.03.2012 12:18, Bronek Kozicki wrote:
> On 20/03/2012 07:47, Sergiu Dotenco wrote:
>> On 3/20/2012 2:41 AM, Bruno Santos wrote:
> ... [BK cut here]
>>> I don't think mercurial is simpler to use. It just makes it harder
>>> to edit history, which is only advantageous for someone completely
>>> clueless about it.
>>
>> You think? How about sticking to the facts? Moreover, why would you
>> even want to edit already shared history? Seems like there are much
>> more clueless Git users who are not able to handle the tool in the
>> first place.
>
> "already shared" is implied and unnecessary. If you remove this bit,
> editing history in git starts to make perfect sense.
>
> When you want history to be readable and logical to other contributors,
> you will likely want to use "git rebase -i" to tidy up or roll up your
> *local* commits *before* you share them with others. It is your private
> repository and private changes, until you share it.
>
> This enables tight private iteration loop while keeping the noise off
> public repository. Eg. you can do commit small change, run test, commit
> more changes, run more tests, to eventually find out that the first
> change had a fatal bug. Edit first commit, add necessary comment, rinse
> and repeat as necessary. When done and tested, roll up your commits and
> share with others.
>
> Just an example of style really, the important point is that your
> development style will not create unnecessary commits in shared
> repository. Well at least this is my experience from using git, and it
> seems to work well for my (very distributed) team.
Everything you described works in Mercurial as well, probably much better.