5 ms·
The staging area is not necessary for your particular workflows. I found Mercurial horrible to work with precisely due to the lack of a staging step.
by nemetroid 8y ago
The staging area is not necessary for your particular workflows. I found Mercurial horrible to work with precisely due to the lack of a staging step.
- erik_seaberg 8y agoUntested commits should never exist, so why are we creating commits from abstracted storage that can't even be built and tested? Staging should happen in the workspace, stashing stuff that's not ready to commit.
- DaiPlusPlus 8y ago> Untested commits should never exist Says who? Branches and commits are cheap, it's how we can undo ourselves and freely experiment. I agree that untested commits into a publishing/release branch shouldn't exist: all commits there should be merges from dev branches, but to say every commit should be tested is utter bollocks and denies us the advantages of cheap branching and commits.
- bzbarsky 8y ago> all commits there should be merges from dev branches Either they need to be squash+merge or the dev branches need to end up with working commits before the merge. Otherwise your life will become hell the first time you need to bisect.
- gmueckl 8y agoYour dislike of mercurial is noted. But that does not change the fact that the staging area is objectively confusing and hindering users (don't have a link to the study here that looked into it).
- jdbernard 8y agoObjectivity is not something you can just claim. There must be some objective measure. You mention a study, but that's not sufficient without an actual reference.