Subject: Re: [boost] [git] Mercurial?
From: Dave Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-03-20 11:12:45
on Tue Mar 20 2012, Sergiu Dotenco <sergiu.dotenco-AT-gmail.com> wrote:
>> When you want history to be readable and logical to other contributors,
>> you will likely want to use "git rebase -i" to tidy up or roll up your
>> *local* commits *before* you share them with others. It is your private
>> repository and private changes, until you share it.
>> This enables tight private iteration loop while keeping the noise off
>> public repository. Eg. you can do commit small change, run test, commit
>> more changes, run more tests, to eventually find out that the first
>> change had a fatal bug. Edit first commit, add necessary comment, rinse
>> and repeat as necessary. When done and tested, roll up your commits and
>> share with others.
>> Just an example of style really, the important point is that your
>> development style will not create unnecessary commits in shared
>> repository. Well at least this is my experience from using git, and it
>> seems to work well for my (very distributed) team.
> Everything you described works in Mercurial as well, probably much better.
For what it's worth, I found history rewriting to be quite a bit more
difficult in Mercurial than in Git. I don't know why; it may be that I
never learned the magic incantation that made it easy. Like I said,
these stories exist in both directions.
-- Dave Abrahams BoostPro Computing http://www.boostpro.com