3 ms·
> "I've really tried to 'get into' mercurial's mindset several times now, but never could, whereas, IMO, git's model is simple and powerful. " > > I find it ha
by Mithaldu 13y ago
> "I've really tried to 'get into' mercurial's mindset several times now, but never could, whereas, IMO, git's model is simple and powerful. "
>
> I find it hard to understand what this means
The git model can be, to a sufficient degree of completeness, be demonstrated with child toys: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ffBJ4sVUb4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ffBJ4sVUb4
I can't even imagine how a similar demonstration would look like with Mercurial. It would probably involve having a bunch of such trees on the table, and super-glue instead of sticking things together.
- mrtngslr 13y agoPlease see this figure: http://www.aosabook.org/en/mercurial.html#fig.hg.revlog http://www.aosabook.org/en/mercurial.html#fig.hg.revlog I hope you see the similarities between the storage layers of Mercurial and of Git: Mercurial has a changeset graph with pointers into a manifest graph. The nodes in the manifest graph points to the files presents in that commit. It's (also) not very complicated. As for branches, they're very simple too, as I tried to explain here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6753477 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6753477