2 ms·
Mercurial had by far the best UX, never had to read anything to learn it. I just pretend that I'm using mercurial when using git and nuke local repo if I mess u
by vasco 3mo ago
Mercurial had by far the best UX, never had to read anything to learn it. I just pretend that I'm using mercurial when using git and nuke local repo if I mess up. Been doing it for my whole career.
- black_knight 3mo agoI love darcs! Somehow its interface just vibes with me. It is interactive by default, and the commands like “record”, “rollback”, etc, are somehow intuitive. Darcs also tried to put more semantic content in the patches, like file operations or search replace parches. It is always satisfying to rename something, then merge in some work where someone used the old variable name in the meanwhile, and the merge would go through automatically applying the rename!
- yurishimo 3mo agoI've often found that many problems when working in teams can be traced back to `rebase`. I understand the benefits, but if you're already working on a team where history is not used in any serious way, then you cut out a lot of foot-guns by only using `merge`.
- Hendrikto 3mo ago> if you're already working on a team where history is not used in any serious way Then you are doing it wrong. Sadly this is very common.
- zwischenzug 3mo agoExcept the "merge mess" footgun. I got into training people in Git (I now do it for O'Reilly) because I worked with 12 teams that merged _everything_ into sub-branches. The result was that the `git log --oneline` command resulted in screensful of just pipes. My initial training goal in training was getting my students to understand a rebase to avoid that mess.
- psychoslave 3mo agoCan you point to your course in O'Reilly catalogue please?
- zwischenzug 3mo agohttps://learning.oreilly.com/live-events/git-clinic/0790145080000/ https://learning.oreilly.com/live-events/git-clinic/07901450...
- BeetleB 3mo agoI loved Mercurial, but once I learned jj, I never looked back.