Re:Mercurial developer responds to "Switch to git?"
by mrtngslr on Monday November 18, 2013 @03:59AM
(#6753385)
(OP here) You don't need to tell the rest of the team if you're using bookmarks, just like you don't need to tell the rest of your team the names of your Git branches.
Bookmarks stay local by default, but they can be exported to the server if you like. There's nothing to enable any longer since it's a core feature.
Re:Mercurial developer responds to "Switch to git?"
by Grue3 on Monday November 18, 2013 @06:34AM
(#6753800)
Mercurial also has named branches. Which suck. I'd rather use bookmarks, but my team uses named branches, so that's what I have to use as well. This problem wouldn't exist with git.
Re:Mercurial developer responds to "Switch to git?"
by dgesang on Monday November 18, 2013 @01:22PM
(#6755843)
So, why do named branches suck? We use both, named branches and bookmarks, but for different things and it works great.
Re:Mercurial developer responds to "Switch to git?"
by sampo on Monday November 18, 2013 @02:07AM
(#6753038)
> which extensions to install
I don't think you need to install those extensions, you just enable them by putting a line in .hgrc
Re:Mercurial developer responds to "Switch to git?"
by mrtngslr on Monday November 18, 2013 @12:34PM
(#6755546)
Mercurial ships with 30+ standard extensions and you simply enable them as needed. More experienced users can download and then install third-party extensions as they like.
This of them as major modes for Emacs, if you're familiar with that. Emacs comes with syntax highlighting support for a lot of languages and the mode is turned on automatically. Sometimes you need to install a new major mode yourself, but the bundled modes get you a long way.
My git workflow is probably replicable in Mercurial, but git does it by default.