Re:The Real Difference Between Git and Mercurial
by gcp on Friday January 20, 2012 @03:28AM
(#3488797)
This is incorrect...However I would probably not use hg rebase on Mercurial queues, which are meant to be managed by mq extension commands.
You completely contradicted your own claim already.
This is exactly what I'm complaining about: Mercurial Queues are diff and patch. And you need Mercurial Queues for decent Mercurial workflows.
I think most of the git vs. mercurial debates are non-productive because proponents of one tool don't know the other tool well enough to argue against it.
I use Mercurial extensively and on a daily basis, so I think I'm qualified to talk about it. People who claim the complaint is invalid should do Mercurial users a favor and point out a workflow that avoids the issue. I'm still waiting (and manually merging all my patch queues whenever I get a conflict in a topmost patch).
You completely contradicted your own claim already.
This is exactly what I'm complaining about: Mercurial Queues are diff and patch. And you need Mercurial Queues for decent Mercurial workflows.
I think most of the git vs. mercurial debates are non-productive because proponents of one tool don't know the other tool well enough to argue against it.
I use Mercurial extensively and on a daily basis, so I think I'm qualified to talk about it. People who claim the complaint is invalid should do Mercurial users a favor and point out a workflow that avoids the issue. I'm still waiting (and manually merging all my patch queues whenever I get a conflict in a topmost patch).