The Real Difference Between Mercurial and Git
stevelosh.com
The Real Difference Between Mercurial and Git
1–5 of 5 posts
Re: The Real Difference Between Mercurial and Git
#2I personally don’t like [git's] index. I feel that git encourages people to check in changesets that contain code which they’ve never tested (or even built) because the index is such a prominent part of git’s workflow.
This doesn't make sense.
Git has the concept of the "index", which is the set of changes to be committed. This can be (and usually is) different from "every modified file in the working directory."
For example: when working on a change that spans multiple files, I frequently work on one file, add it to the index, and continue in that fashion. By the time I'm done the index reflects every file necessary for the [feature|bug fix|whatever] and is easily committed.
The index doesn't encourage commits any more than having modified files in the working directory does.
Re: The Real Difference Between Mercurial and Git
#3The real difference between Mercurial and Git:
Steve Losh is to stupid to use git.
Re: The Real Difference Between Mercurial and Git
#4The real difference between Mercurial and Git: Steve Losh is to stupid to use git.
[deleted]
Re: The Real Difference Between Mercurial and Git
#5> `git help checkout | wc -l` vs `(hg help update && hg help branch && hg help revert) | wc -l`
Excuse me, but comparing text readability and documentation quality by line counting is boldly incorrect.