Git 2.0 release notes

Re:Git 2.0 release notes by jgraham on Wednesday March 12, 2014 @09:16AM (#7385340)

Also, mercurial has mq, which adds a whole extra layer of complexity. Instead of making safe commits, you continually update ("refresh") a set of patch files. Each time you refresh you lose all the history (as if you exclusively used git commit --amend for work in progress). In order to solve this someone got the idea that the patch queue itself could be versioned by creating a second repository that you would commit each revision of the patches to. Unsurprisingly it turns out that two repos are not better than one and doing "simple" things (moving a patch queue between two clones of the same remote) requires fiddly manual operations.

Mercurial has some neat features, but this idea that it's always easy to use and git is always hard to use simply isn't true.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Git 2.0 release notes by ygra on Wednesday March 12, 2014 @09:19AM (#7385353)

To be fair, mq is needed only for very few specialised needs (apart from strip, maybe). Most hg users can get by just fine with never enabling it at all.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Git 2.0 release notes by acdha on Wednesday March 12, 2014 @09:52AM (#7385548)

For years the Hg community proclaimed it was the answer to git rebase. Might be time for a concerted doc push to get those references updated with pointers to the rebase extension instead.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Git 2.0 release notes by kyrra on Wednesday March 12, 2014 @10:14AM (#7385688)

Because it was the answer originally (it's wiki page appeared in 2005, rebase appeared in 2008). Then rebase became the better answer. What proclaimed answer are you referring to here? On their GitConcepts[0] page, it says "hg rebase" or "hg histedit" should be used to do "git rebase" type operations. The only time they recommend MQ is if you want the index or the "git am" type command.

And as anton_gogolev mentioned, ChangesetEvolution[1] will probably help augment HistEdit and Rebase for a number of operations. It will allow pushable history rewriting.

[0] http://mercurial.selenic.com/wiki/GitConcepts

[1] http://mercurial.selenic.com/wiki/ChangesetEvolution

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Git 2.0 release notes by acdha on Wednesday March 12, 2014 @02:14PM (#7387259)

> What proclaimed answer are you referring to here?

You answered that in your first paragraph: for many years, the first time people looked at Mercurial the answer for that class of problems was mq. The problem now is that it's still easy to find stale internal documentation, old blog posts, etc. which haven't been updated with the new recommendations. I thought that it might be worth having a small campaign to encourage people to update old wikis, contact blog authors, etc. when they find those recommendations and suggest a simple “this is no longer recommended – see …” update.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Git 2.0 release notes by anton_gogolev on Wednesday March 12, 2014 @10:13AM (#7385681)

Answer to rebase in particular (and the whole "Git makes it simple to edit history" argument in general) is Changeset Evolution [1].

[1]: https://air.mozilla.org/changesets-evolution-with-mercurial/

[ Parent | on HN ]