4 ms·
Yep. At Google it is "change list", which I think is good because it isn't a "request" until you send it to someone to merge it, which you don't always do. Mayb
by sanderjd 5y ago
Yep. At Google it is "change list", which I think is good because it isn't a "request" until you send it to someone to merge it, which you don't always do. Maybe "diff list" would be even better. Or maybe we could have just stuck with "patch" or "patch set" from back when people would just send these around in emails.
- galoisscobi 5y agoAh, miss creating CLs and using fig. I now use git but always liked fig/mercurial better and wish it had won the version control space. When people ask me what I liked about mercurial, I tell them that I could rebase, cherry pick, branch and do whatever else I could think of without needing to Google it or going to stackoverflow, it was just intuitive. I can’t seem to grok git that way. Any time I need to do anything more than branch, stage, commit, push, I have to google and read man pages.
- sanderjd 5y agoYep, mercurial is great, much better design at the API level, though I don't know the internals of either of them. Fig is pretty good but it feels a lot slower than git; I think it's doing more stuff remotely than I expect it to.
- alwillis 5y ago+1 for Mercurial.
- martinvonz 5y agoIf you like Fig and want a similar (but better, IMO) UX that can be used with Git repos, you may want to try my project: https://github.com/martinvonz/jj https://github.com/martinvonz/jj. It's also pretty fast (can rebase >1k commits in <1s in the Git source repo, for example). I'm on the Fig team at Google, but the project is my own.
- sanderjd 5y agoCool! Thanks for the link!