Git 2.0 release notes

Post by exDM69 » Wed, Mar 12, 2014, 11:22 AM UTC

simias wrote: post #21

exDM69 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Is it just me or "simple semantics" is not at all simple? It's just you. It's about time we'd put "hg vs. git" to the category of flamebait topics (similar to "emacs vs. vi" etc) that should be avoided. Every time there's a git topic, someone comes and derails the whole discussion with a not-quite-apt comparison with hg. AFAIK, there are decent two-way conversion tools so you can use hg with a git repo and vice ver…

So comparing two competing tools is flamebait nowadays? I think the OP makes a valid and argumented point.

Post by bostonvaulter2 » Wed, Mar 12, 2014, 11:29 AM UTC

pmr_ wrote: post #12

bru wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I've noticed that most devs seem to have strong opinions one way or another. I've personally noticed that most devs don't have an opinion either way since they don't use subtrees nor submodules. I don't know what subtrees offer but using submodules has been very pleasant once you know how they work. For example if you version control your .vim I think that adding submodules for extensions is way better than cloning…

I used to do this for my .emacs files and modules. It worked quite well, but in the end package.el made it unnecessary. Since then I came to the conclusion that git submodules are not a real substitute for a package manager.

Post by egork8n » Wed, Mar 12, 2014, 11:56 AM UTC

krig wrote: post #23

anton_gogolev wrote: post #7

Is it just me or "simple semantics" is not at all simple? Compare with: hg push -- pushes everything to "default push location" hg push -r . -- pushes currently checked out branch hg push -r foo where -- pushes foo to where

When you say "the currently checked out branch", do you mean the current branch, bookmark, head, local branch or mutable branch? Or maybe you are referring to the current phase, or a secret changeset? "Mercurial is so much simpler than git" is only true for one reason: You prefer mercurial and dislike git, and so you look for flaws in git while glossing over flaws in mercurial.

Post by anton_gogolev » Wed, Mar 12, 2014, 12:14 PM UTC

krig wrote: post #23

anton_gogolev wrote: post #7

Is it just me or "simple semantics" is not at all simple? Compare with: hg push -- pushes everything to "default push location" hg push -r . -- pushes currently checked out branch hg push -r foo where -- pushes foo to where

When you say "the currently checked out branch", do you mean the current branch, bookmark, head, local branch or mutable branch? Or maybe you are referring to the current phase, or a secret changeset? "Mercurial is so much simpler than git" is only true for one reason: You prefer mercurial and dislike git, and so you look for flaws in git while glossing over flaws in mercurial.

Post by Skinney » Wed, Mar 12, 2014, 12:26 PM UTC

anton_gogolev wrote: post #28

krig wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When you say "the currently checked out branch", do you mean the current branch, bookmark, head, local branch or mutable branch? Or maybe you are referring to the current phase, or a secret changeset? "Mercurial is so much simpler than git" is only true for one reason: You prefer mercurial and dislike git, and so you look for flaws in git while glossing over flaws in mercurial.

Or maybe it is Git that has introduced all kinds of crazy concepts that you're now struggling to keep in mind? Local branches? Remote tracking branches? Mutable branches? Really?