3 ms·

Asking as someone who's never touched Mercurial: how is Mercurial simpler? Looking at https://confluence.atlassian.com/get-started-with-bitbucket/git-and-mercu

Asking as someone who's never touched Mercurial: how is Mercurial simpler? Looking at https://confluence.atlassian.com/get-started-with-bitbucket/git-and-mercurial-commands-860009656.html https://confluence.atlassian.com/get-started-with-bitbucket/..., the conceptual model looks almost identical, and so do the commands for common tasks.

lixtra 8y ago
git has 3+1 areas where a change can live: - working directory - staged - commited - (upstream) * hg has only 2+1 - working directory - commited - (upstream) * (*) both support something like stash but in hg it is easier to avoid that. git log shows you history depending on the checked out version hg log shows you the whole history of the branch, also after your checked out version. Knowing where you are is very valuable. in hg you can push multiple heads into a repo. that is very convenient when a junior is unable to merge something. to my understanding in git you need different branches. git - linus wants you to edit commits until they are perfect hg - mpm once said that you have to accpet mistakes that happen[1] as a consequence git has more advanced features very exposed while hg has a simple novice workflow [1] https://www.mercurial-scm.org/pipermail/mercurial/2006-June/008751.html https://www.mercurial-scm.org/pipermail/mercurial/2006-June/...
- nemetroid 8y ago
  > (*) both support something like stash but in hg it is easier to avoid that. Incidentally, using shelve in hg is the only way I've ever lost work in a VCS (I've made the same error in git as well, but a dropped stash can be found again). > git log shows you history depending on the checked out version > hg log shows you the whole history of the branch, also after your checked out version. Knowing where you are is very valuable. git can show this, too, if you ask for it. If you've checked out some ancestor of `branch-name`, then `git log branch-name` will show `HEAD` next to the commit you've checked out. A single commit can belong to multiple branches, so if git showed you commits after your checked out version, which branch should it show? All of them? > git - linus wants you to edit commits until they are perfect You can use a never-rebase workflow in git as well, but most people elect not to.
  - lixtra 8y ago
    > Incidentally, using shelve in hg is the only way I've ever lost work in a VCS (I've made the same error in git as well, but a dropped stash can be found again). At least today there is .hg/shelve-backup/

lixtra 8y ago

git has 3+1 areas where a change can live: - working directory - staged - commited - (upstream) * hg has only 2+1 - working directory - commited - (upstream) * (*) both support something like stash but in hg it is easier to avoid that. git log shows you history depending on the checked out version hg log shows you the whole history of the branch, also after your checked out version. Knowing where you are is very valuable. in hg you can push multiple heads into a repo. that is very convenient when a junior is unable to merge something. to my understanding in git you need different branches. git - linus wants you to edit commits until they are perfect hg - mpm once said that you have to accpet mistakes that happen[1] as a consequence git has more advanced features very exposed while hg has a simple novice workflow [1] https://www.mercurial-scm.org/pipermail/mercurial/2006-June/008751.html https://www.mercurial-scm.org/pipermail/mercurial/2006-June/...

nemetroid 8y ago
> (*) both support something like stash but in hg it is easier to avoid that. Incidentally, using shelve in hg is the only way I've ever lost work in a VCS (I've made the same error in git as well, but a dropped stash can be found again). > git log shows you history depending on the checked out version > hg log shows you the whole history of the branch, also after your checked out version. Knowing where you are is very valuable. git can show this, too, if you ask for it. If you've checked out some ancestor of `branch-name`, then `git log branch-name` will show `HEAD` next to the commit you've checked out. A single commit can belong to multiple branches, so if git showed you commits after your checked out version, which branch should it show? All of them? > git - linus wants you to edit commits until they are perfect You can use a never-rebase workflow in git as well, but most people elect not to.
- lixtra 8y ago
  > Incidentally, using shelve in hg is the only way I've ever lost work in a VCS (I've made the same error in git as well, but a dropped stash can be found again). At least today there is .hg/shelve-backup/