3 ms·

tl;dr: Person finds a legitimate difference between Git and Hg and doesn't seem to understand that different people could have different but equally legitimate

tl;dr: Person finds a legitimate difference between Git and Hg and doesn't seem to understand that different people could have different but equally legitimate opinions on the situation. "The saddening thing is that so many Git users seem to have a conceptual block against even recognizing there is a problem here. They embrace the need for historical revisionism that their tools force on them, and they call it a virtue." Because they have a different opinion. Stunner.

viraptor 16y ago
The way he expressed it is not perfect... but seeing other comparisons claiming the opposite (permanent branches in hg are an issue), we might need some posts like that before people notice it's just a preference.
bryanlarsen 16y ago
I found the article itself very persuasive, your comment much less so. It doesn't seem like the feature would be hard to add to git, and wouldn't affect anybody who doesn't use it or turns it off in their preferences. It would never be used in the Linux kernel environment, but it does seem like something very useful in a standard corporate environment with their common shared central code repositories.
eropple 16y ago
Their opinion is wrong. There's no value to rewriting history because one's tools can't handle a sane mode of operation. Git could fix this fairly trivially, and should. (Or, rather, they could fix it fairly trivially if not for the peculiar insistence on the use of rebase operations.)
stevelosh 16y ago
It seemed to me that the entire point of this post was to explain how the other opinion is flawed. It showed a concrete benefit to the Mercurial workflow (or a concrete disadvantage to the Git one, if you prefer). "Well that's just your opinion" isn't a valid argument against a real, tangible advantage like this. There may be reasons why the Git users prefer their method, and those are the valid arguments.
akkartik 16y ago
It's inaccurate to label your opinion as tl;dr.

viraptor 16y ago

The way he expressed it is not perfect... but seeing other comparisons claiming the opposite (permanent branches in hg are an issue), we might need some posts like that before people notice it's just a preference.

bryanlarsen 16y ago

I found the article itself very persuasive, your comment much less so. It doesn't seem like the feature would be hard to add to git, and wouldn't affect anybody who doesn't use it or turns it off in their preferences. It would never be used in the Linux kernel environment, but it does seem like something very useful in a standard corporate environment with their common shared central code repositories.

eropple 16y ago

Their opinion is wrong. There's no value to rewriting history because one's tools can't handle a sane mode of operation. Git could fix this fairly trivially, and should. (Or, rather, they could fix it fairly trivially if not for the peculiar insistence on the use of rebase operations.)

stevelosh 16y ago

It seemed to me that the entire point of this post was to explain how the other opinion is flawed. It showed a concrete benefit to the Mercurial workflow (or a concrete disadvantage to the Git one, if you prefer). "Well that's just your opinion" isn't a valid argument against a real, tangible advantage like this. There may be reasons why the Git users prefer their method, and those are the valid arguments.

akkartik 16y ago

It's inaccurate to label your opinion as tl;dr.