Re: [boost] [git] Mercurial?

Subject: Re: [boost] [git] Mercurial?
From: Daniel James (dnljms_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-03-22 19:10:26

On 22 March 2012 23:00, Martin Geisler <mg_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> Daniel James <dnljms_at_[hidden]> writes:
>
>> On 22 March 2012 17:17, Dave Abrahams <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>>
>>> on Thu Mar 22 2012, Martin Geisler <mg-AT-aragost.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Julien Nitard <julien.nitard_at_[hidden]> writes:
>>>>
>>>>>> It seems that everybody has heard of this magic... but nobody has
>>>>>> actually seen it, and nobody can remember where they read about it :)
>>>>>
>>>>> I do, in case somebody is interested. It's in the introduction to
>>>>> Mercurial wrote by Joel Spolski.that was posted here not so long ago.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://hginit.com/00.html paragraph "One more big conceptual difference".
>>>>
>>>> Oh, yeah, that guide... :)
>>>>
>>>> I'm afraid Joel didn't really know what he was talking about back
>>>> when he wrote that piece.
>>>
>>> +1
>>
>> Wrt. git, the 'magic' certainly predates 'hg init'. For example, see
>> the second answer at:
>>
>> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1897585/how-does-git-handle-merging-code-that-was-moved-to-a-different-file
>
> No, that answer is full of "I think" and "git should" and so on. It's
> not factually correct

I was linking to an example of someone who was wrong. My mail was
about history, not what git is capable of. The point was that the
misconception didn't start with 'hg init'.