3 ms·
Your mercurial experience is out of date. Mercurial now supports a rebase workflow better than git does (with github and their pull-request workflow dominating
by krupan 9y ago
Your mercurial experience is out of date. Mercurial now supports a rebase workflow better than git does (with github and their pull-request workflow dominating the world, nobody seems to rebase with git anymore). See the evolve extension, and for even more mindblowingly cool stuff, see mercurial absorb.
Mercurial seems to give merge tools better information when rebasing too. I've had to resolve some annoying conflicts when rebasing with git, and I've cloned the repository with hg-git and done the same rebase and had it go flawlessly.
- cryptonector 9y agoCool. Absorb sounds very nice. But even if bookmarks now work flawlessly such that I need never again deal with Mercurial's awful heavy-weight branching model, for me it's too late. This is what happens when you don't mind the store: someone else takes your business. Mercurial people spent years screaming about the evils of re-writing history only to now aim to provide a better rebase experience -- fantastic, but too late, the world has moved on. Also, don't forget the index! I adore the index in git.
- cryptonector 9y agoI hope people learn the value of not being opinionated when it comes to building mind-share. I know, being opinionated works for Apple, and Apple is a fantastically valuable company. But I don't think it works well for everyone else. Git's being not-opinionated may be the thing that is best about it.
- codesnik 9y agorebase works with github pull requests reasonably well, I use it all the time. I think, others do too.
- cryptonector 9y agoTook github long enough to provide that feature. Speaking of opinionated tools...