Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] [git] Mercurial?
From: Neal Becker (ndbecker2_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-03-20 11:26:27

Thomas Heller wrote:

> On 03/20/2012 04:12 PM, Dave Abrahams wrote:
>> on Tue Mar 20 2012, Sergiu Dotenco<> 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.
> I am curios now ... I get the feeling that history rewriting is one of
> the git killer features. Can someone enlighten me what the fuss is
> about? What is the usecase?
This is one of the discrimators between git and hg. git encourages the use of
rebase (at least, it does socially). hg discourages it (but it is possible).

There are arguments that rebase is dangerous, and that a different workflow is

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at