2 ms·

What exactly does Mercurial do differently that is better?

• eropple 15y ago
  Short of explicitly installing a rebase extension, it simply does not allow you to do this sort of mucking about with the commit history. For "oops, typo" commits, you can very quickly (and I mean, "it's a button in Tortoise" quickly) roll back your change and keep it in abeyance until you've fixed the typo.
  • wnight 15y ago
    Then what's the difference? You were talking about how you preferred uneditable histories, why does only rebase count?
  • chousuke 15y ago
    So basically you reject a powerful tool out of idealism ("must never ever edit history") and fix your commits manually, also forgoing the possibility of fixing earlier unpublished commits. Instead you could code and commit (you know, use the VCS :P) without worry in a private branch, checking for problems afterwards and fixing them using rebase prior to merging the commits into the main branch. (where "must never ever edit history" actually applies) Sorry if I sound snarky, but that's what this seems like to me.