11–20 of 270 posts
I've never heard of mercurial until this post, I've been using git for version control and it does the job really well. To those who use mercurial over git, why?
edit: I can’t remember where, it was when I was researching fossil, but there are some good reads on why Linus created git and the history of VCSs.
I've never heard of mercurial until this post, I've been using git for version control and it does the job really well. To those who use mercurial over git, why?
Where I work Mercurial has been an option for some time now (no Git unfortunately) and coming from Git I must say I really love how it does some of its things:
- hg split: split a commit into as many different commits as you like using an interactive patch editor (you can fold/collapse hunks, can edit them textually, can select which lines of the hunk should be applied). It will automatically rebase all the commits on top of the commit being split, ofc
- hg histedit: a sort of "git rebase -i" where you get a list of commits that you can manipulate by reordering them, merging, dropping
- hg amend -i/commit -i: interactive commit or amending of a commit, it's using that awesome interactive patch editor I mentioned earlier to select what exactly gets committed/amended
- same for "hg shelve -i" (a sort of "git stash")
The closest thing in Git to that interactive patch editor was doing "git add -p" which is not as good.
[1] https://engineering.fb.com/2014/01/07/core-data/scaling-merc...
I've never heard of mercurial until this post, I've been using git for version control and it does the job really well. To those who use mercurial over git, why?
A much better UI. Git won because of the influence of the Linux kernel developers, that's all.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A much better UI. Git won because of the influence of the Linux kernel developers, that's all.
I feel like GitHub made a lot of hacking around and software development a lot more seamless too. Before GitHub, the average state of software development seemed a bit more clunky to me.
I've never heard of mercurial until this post, I've been using git for version control and it does the job really well. To those who use mercurial over git, why?
A much better UI. Git won because of the influence of the Linux kernel developers, that's all.
"So in moving it to GitHub, we’re finding that a lot of things are just nicer because a large paid staff of engineers is working on it every day. And I grew up during the heydey of the Free Software Foundation, so I know this is a trap, but I’m tired and don’t have the energy to be a server admin for something that’s held together with scotch tape and prayers when I’m really supposed to be writing OpenGL code." This…
I've never heard of mercurial until this post, I've been using git for version control and it does the job really well. To those who use mercurial over git, why?
> One reason we hadn’t considered a move to GitHub before now is that this project has had a policy of owning all its infrastructure.
This is still a good policy to have. They've already done the work to migrate from mercurial to git so, the potential for moving to a forked gitlab or something like that is there. Personally I think that, especially if your doing open source, github is really the way to go here. Github has been great for open source.
I've never heard of mercurial until this post, I've been using git for version control and it does the job really well. To those who use mercurial over git, why?
One advantage of mercurial is that it is less tied to a specific file format like git is. It is much easier to make a mercurial backend for a system which actually stores the code in a different way (for example a distributed data store).