mrtngslr

7 ms·

1. 31.▲
   by mrtngslr 13y ago

   Very sensible comment :) Having gained the most mind-share is Git's best feature, along with it's flexible branches and speed. Those features are super important and as a Mercurial developer, I'm very impressed with them.
2. 32.▲
   by mrtngslr 13y ago

   Agreed... rewriting history is a powerful tool that power users will want to use. Nothing more. That of course applies to all tools :)
3. 33.▲
   by mrtngslr 13y ago

   Please see this figure: 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 m
4. 34.▲
   by mrtngslr 13y ago

   There is only one type of commit in Mercurial. Please don't suggest otherwise. The commits form a directed acyclic graph (a DAG) and you expand the graph when you make new commits. Subsets of the graph can be said to belong to the same
5. 35.▲
   by mrtngslr 13y ago

   I think the view you present here is outdated. Today, rebasing is used a lot by Mercurial users. Even for the development of Mercurial itself, rebasing is not considered bad, it's considered a requirement for submitting a patch series.
6. 36.▲
   by mrtngslr 13y ago

   (OP here) You don't need to tell the rest of the team if you're using bookmarks, just like you don't need to tell the rest of your team the names of your Git branches. Bookmarks stay local by default, but they can be exported