News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:The Real Difference Between Git and Mercurial by Rusky on Thursday January 19, 2012 @05:48PM (#3487263)
The biggest advantage of Git's storage model is imo the reflog- I have irretrievably lost work to Mercurial Queues, and that's virtually impossible in Git.
Re:The Real Difference Between Git and Mercurial by azakai on Thursday January 19, 2012 @05:59PM (#3487307)
If you version your MQ, you can never lose data in it.

In git, if you rewrite history, you lose information - you can no longer see what things looked like before you rewrote it.

Disclaimer: I use git myself and prefer it. But the hg and MQ bashing in the comments here is unfair.

Re:The Real Difference Between Git and Mercurial by tene on Thursday January 19, 2012 @11:18PM (#3488294)
In git, if you rewrite history, your old history is still available via the reflog; nothing is lost.
Re:The Real Difference Between Git and Mercurial by Rusky on Thursday January 19, 2012 @06:15PM (#3487388)
When I used MQ, it was to modify history in a way equivalent to some of git's features. Versioning that defeats the purpose.
Re:The Real Difference Between Git and Mercurial by gcp on Thursday January 19, 2012 @06:24PM (#3487434)
The MQ versioning repo is separate from the main versioning repo. So I don't see how one follows from the other here. You can perfectly modify history in the main repo and version that editing in the MQ repo. The main repo will look clean because the history editing is versioned in the MQ repo.
Re:The Real Difference Between Git and Mercurial by Rusky on Friday January 20, 2012 @11:24AM (#3489988)
Ah, that's good to know. I was not aware of that.
Re:The Real Difference Between Git and Mercurial by gcp on Thursday January 19, 2012 @05:55PM (#3487292)
I really, really, really hate to write in defense of Mercurial, but you are aware that Mercurial Queues are versionable themselves, right?

If you are, can you explain what happened (and perhaps save our asses?)