Re: [boost] [git] Mercurial?

Subject: Re: [boost] [git] Mercurial?
From: Martin Geisler (mg_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-03-23 02:38:42

Daniel James <dnljms_at_[hidden]> writes:

> 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'.

Oh, I see now! I'm sorry about the misunderstanding.

-- 
Martin Geisler
Mercurial links: http://mercurial.ch/