4 ms·

Why would Git be any better? They're both tools that ultimately accomplish the same thing.

• Peaker 16y ago
  git rebase -i, git reset --hard, git checkout <any-refspec>
  • masklinn 16y ago
    hg histedit, hg revert, hg update -r{any revspec}
    • Peaker 16y ago
      I meant "git reset --hard" as a prefix for useful <refspecs>. Can hg set the current branch to point anywhere in time? Does histedit do exactly what "rebase" does? Does it also work with "--onto" and other rebase features?
      • viraptor 16y ago
        Regarding resetting: hg up -C <some ref> will give you a clean checkout of that ref, discarding any local changes.
        • jbellis 16y ago
          (Sorry about the accidental downvote. Arrows + phone got me again.)
      • elehack 16y ago
        hg branches are entirely different from git branches, so resetting them in that way doesn't make sense. The closest approximation - bookmarks - can indeed be reset (hg bookmark -f). histedit does a variety of things; I'm not sure if it covers all of rebase's branches. Mercurial does also have a rebase facility now as well.
        • prodigal_erik 16y ago
          Hg seems to have evolved several vaguely similar but isolated optional features (named branches, local branches, bookmarks, patch queues) which I guess means they haven't arrived at one everybody's happy with. Some people even prefer to keep hg branches in cloned repos, which sounds very painful. Git handles all those use cases by binding a ref to a commit and calling it a branch (even stashes are stored as branches, just more difficult to push).
        • masklinn 16y ago
          > histedit does a variety of things; I'm not sure if it covers all of rebase's branches. Mercurial does also have a rebase facility now as well. That is correct. In Mercurial, git's `rebase` is (sensibly, as far as I am concerned) split into two different commands: `histedit` handles the history edition within a branch and `rebase` handles the rebasing of a branch on a revision of an other branch.
      • masklinn 16y ago
        `histedit` does what `rebase -i` does, `hg rebase` does what `rebase` does. There are a few limitations to `histedit` compared to `git rebase -i` I think: I believe it's possible to split revisions using `rebase -i`, I don't think that can be done using histedit (it has pick, edit, drop and fold). Histedit also misses the (pretty recent I believe) `exec` action of git's rebase -i.
    • ciupicri 16y ago
      hg: unknown command 'histedit'