Mercurial developer responds to "Switch to git?"
groups.google.com
Mercurial developer responds to "Switch to git?"
1–10 of 201 posts
Re: Mercurial developer responds to "Switch to git?"
#2I really appreciated that this response was not overbearing, or just raw opinion, and rather compared many of the similarities and differences from mercurial to git, and how they approach similar issues differently.
Honestly, I've struggled in moving from SVN/TFS to GIT, but it's been worthwhile.. having local branching, and being able to work locally is great. I can't really compare this to hg, as I haven't worked with mercurial at all.
The company I work for has moved a lot of its' development to a github enterprise deployment, and it's been interesting. I like git extensions for windows, though it's a bit rough around the edges. It's also a bit limited in terms of VS integration, but I can manage. I think that Tortoise + Ankh was a better combination overall in terms of the polish of the tooling, over what git currently offers.
I tend to now work with a few console windows open, and have been using the command line much more.
Re: Mercurial developer responds to "Switch to git?"
#3I really appreciated that this response was not overbearing, or just raw opinion, and rather compared many of the similarities and differences from mercurial to git, and how they approach similar issues differently. Honestly, I've struggled in moving from SVN/TFS to GIT, but it's been worthwhile.. having local branching, and being able to work locally is great. I can't really compare this to hg, as I haven't worked w…
I use TFS at work and Git at home - I do miss Visual Studio's merge features which have been greatly improved in 2012 and 2013. How did you get your head around resolving merge conflicts in Git?
Re: Mercurial developer responds to "Switch to git?"
#4I really appreciated that this response was not overbearing, or just raw opinion, and rather compared many of the similarities and differences from mercurial to git, and how they approach similar issues differently. Honestly, I've struggled in moving from SVN/TFS to GIT, but it's been worthwhile.. having local branching, and being able to work locally is great. I can't really compare this to hg, as I haven't worked w…
I use TFS at work and Git at home - I do miss Visual Studio's merge features which have been greatly improved in 2012 and 2013. How did you get your head around resolving merge conflicts in Git?
it's not too bad in git. you just look at the merge conflict markers in each of the files specified, delete or merge what you want in each of the files, then add the changes to the staging area, and commit again to complete the merge.
this might help: http://stackoverflow.com/a/7589612
and this: http://git-scm.com/book/en/Git-Branching-Basic-Branching-and...
Re: Mercurial developer responds to "Switch to git?"
#5I quit using Mercurial around 1.4 and was happily surprised by all the improvements in 2.8 (shelve, bookmark improvements, etc.). Martin Geisler's reply was both thoughtful and respectful, a rare sight in this debate.
Re: Mercurial developer responds to "Switch to git?"
#6I quit using Mercurial around 1.4 and was happily surprised by all the improvements in 2.8 (shelve, bookmark improvements, etc.). Martin Geisler's reply was both thoughtful and respectful, a rare sight in this debate.
> Martin Geisler's reply was both thoughtful and respectful, a rare sight in this debate.
I have seen this debate plenty of times but I'd hesitate to say that the overwhelming majority of times are hostile.
I think the mercurial guys know that their tool is good with some flaws and that they know that the git tool is good with some flaws and that most other tools are not quite as good. The typical reaction that I have seen is I don't care which one you use if you are using git or hg or some other equally capable revision control scheme.
I definitely agree that Mr. Geilser's response was well thought out and polite.
Re: Mercurial developer responds to "Switch to git?"
#7I really appreciated that this response was not overbearing, or just raw opinion, and rather compared many of the similarities and differences from mercurial to git, and how they approach similar issues differently. Honestly, I've struggled in moving from SVN/TFS to GIT, but it's been worthwhile.. having local branching, and being able to work locally is great. I can't really compare this to hg, as I haven't worked w…
I use TFS at work and Git at home - I do miss Visual Studio's merge features which have been greatly improved in 2012 and 2013. How did you get your head around resolving merge conflicts in Git?
It's as easy as searching for ">>>>" in your text editor; the conflicts will be clearly marked and you take the markers out and make the merged code look the way you want it.
Re: Mercurial developer responds to "Switch to git?"
#8I really appreciated that this response was not overbearing, or just raw opinion, and rather compared many of the similarities and differences from mercurial to git, and how they approach similar issues differently. Honestly, I've struggled in moving from SVN/TFS to GIT, but it's been worthwhile.. having local branching, and being able to work locally is great. I can't really compare this to hg, as I haven't worked w…
You should try SourceTree, it's a great Windows and Mac Git GUI client! It's free (as in beer) and also supports Mercurial.
Re: Mercurial developer responds to "Switch to git?"
#9It's refreshing to see someone with a level-headed response who doesn't fly off the rails defending their source control tool of choice, unlike what you usually see with developers of well-known frameworks like PHP and Ruby. I don't personally use Mercurial myself, but it doesn't seem like a bad source control choice, anything is better than SVN, right? Git and Mercurial both seem like great and sensible choices.
Re: Mercurial developer responds to "Switch to git?"
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
I use TFS at work and Git at home - I do miss Visual Studio's merge features which have been greatly improved in 2012 and 2013. How did you get your head around resolving merge conflicts in Git?
it's not too bad in git. you just look at the merge conflict markers in each of the files specified, delete or merge what you want in each of the files, then add the changes to the staging area, and commit again to complete the merge. this might help: http://stackoverflow.com/a/7589612 and this: http://git-scm.com/book/en/Git-Branching-Basic-Branching-and...
Even better, one can specify a mergetool in their config, and use a standard diff tool to resolve conflicts.