Subject: Re: [boost] [git] Mercurial?
From: Thomas Heller (thom.heller_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-03-20 11:22:01
On 03/20/2012 04:12 PM, Dave Abrahams wrote:
>
> on Tue Mar 20 2012, Sergiu Dotenco<sergiu.dotenco-AT-gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> 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.
>
> For what it's worth, I found history rewriting to be quite a bit more
> difficult in Mercurial than in Git. I don't know why; it may be that I
> never learned the magic incantation that made it easy. Like I said,
> these stories exist in both directions.
I am curios now ... I get the feeling that history rewriting is one of
the git killer features. Can someone enlighten me what the fuss is
about? What is the usecase?