4 ms·
> So Mercurial has an index? Or is that something else? Something else. i for interactive. > Looks like roughly the same thing as `hg record -p` Do you mean
by sfink 7y ago
> So Mercurial has an index? Or is that something else?
Something else. i for interactive.
> Looks like roughly the same thing as `hg record -p`
Do you mean git commit -p? (Or is it git add -p? I can't check right now, and I can't even predict which one git would pick.) Anyway, yes, it's exactly that.
> An index is much easier to use.
Why? I don't miss it in hg. I use it in git, but it mostly feels like it's an extra thing to remember. Yet most git users agree with you, so I'd like to understand why.
> `git add -e` is simply amazing.
I wonder what you'd think of `hg absorb`.
- cryptonector 7y ago> > An index is much easier to use. > > Why? I don't miss it in hg. I use it in git, but it mostly feels like it's an extra thing to remember. Yet most git users agree with you, so I'd like to understand why. With `hg record`, if anything goes wrong, I have to start over. That can be extremely frustrating. With `git add -e/-p` I can quit at any time and leave the things that were OK in the index while I take time to think about how to "absorb" the rest, or even commit what I have now and then go about dealing with the rest. The index not only gives me the ability to do that sort of thing, but it also lets me get atomicity -- no matter what happens in the workspace, the index stays as I left it until I either add more to it or commit it or reset it.