|
mr_jim posted:That's pretty neat, and I like git and all, but what's wrong with just using mercurial if that's what the rest of the team uses? They seem pretty similar, feature-wise. Nothing's wrong with hg, git just has some really killer features that make it a lot nicer to use once you get the hang of it. The index/staging area http://plasmasturm.org/log/gitidxpraise/ and the pile of ways that git makes screwing around with your repo history easy, for example.
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2010 05:54
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 18, 2024 01:04 |
|
|
uXs posted:If you primarily use that staging area to make partial commits, well, hg can do partial commits too. I do it all the time. Wow, I used hg for a year and a half both at work and on personal projects and I never knew about the record extension. Thanks! If I find myself using it again that will definitely come in handy.  It's a big plus to the staging area, yes. But I also like the way that it lets you build commits in pieces as you go, sometimes using different tools along the way. That's just the index, without even getting into differences in how the two tools handle branching. Git seems to promote the idea of cleaning up your history before making it public while hg seems to promote the idea that history is what it is, for better or for worse. Maybe that's more of a cultural difference than a technical one, but it always seemed a little off that most of the juicy commands for hg were hidden away in extensions you had to explicitly enable. Basically I can see why someone would spend an hour or so creating some bridge scripts so they can still use tools they're comfortable with.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2010 20:13
|
|
|
Mithaldu posted:[...] Yes, exactly. Not tidying your commits before pushing them somewhere public is like tweeting what you had for every meal; no one cares and it makes sifting through the noise for useful info harder. You can get away with the whole, "every
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2011 22:17
|
|
|
stray posted:When you do, let us know, because I want to make a note to never fork any of your code. You are trying to find a way to avoid one of Git's biggest and best features, while also ensuring that no one will ever be able to comprehend your commit history. I think you missed this part: Plorkyeran posted:then before pushing review each commit, squash and split like crazy, and add actual commit messages The commit history you see would be clean, well documented, precise changes.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 6, 2011 02:40
|
|