At Wed, 13 May 2020 07:53:28 +0200, Thomas Klausner <tk%giga.or.at@localhost> wrote: Subject: Re: ongoing git vs hg (was: github.com/NetBSD/src 5 days old?) > > On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 08:55:05PM -0700, Greg A. Woods wrote: > > For one, Mercurial has no staging area. That removes one level of > > the three-level hierarchy from my toolset. Itʼs hard to identify > > exactly when in my workflow this causes issues, but Iʼve started to > > notice it. For example, itʼs not possible to commit a hunk from my > > editor like I can with git and vim-gitgutter. > > > > I do the same with magit -- the staging area is a supreme benefit! > > I disagree. Anyway, what git does here is "git add --patch" and the hg > eqivalent is "hg record" (which is not enabled by default; just add > "record=" in an "[extensions]" block in your .hgrc to enable it), so > the functionality is available for both tools. Since I won't ever be using Mercurial directly for day-to-day work (unless current circumstance that go far beyond my own control change very drastically), the question then turns to how will the moral equivalent to a pull request look once merged into the trunk/master branch, or whatever it will be called. The point I was trying to make by referring to Kun's essay is that the original commits should still exist in the DAG (even if the original branch name is removed from the master repo). I.e. that no commit metadata from the original submission ever be lost. The failure of CVS and using patches to submit changes is that _all_ of the commit metadata is entirely lost, and the failure of the workflow Kun describes with Mecurial (at Google) is that _most_ of this metadata is still lost. -- Greg A. Woods <gwoods%acm.org@localhost> Kelowna, BC +1 250 762-7675 RoboHack <woods%robohack.ca@localhost> Planix, Inc. <woods%planix.com@localhost> Avoncote Farms <woods%avoncote.ca@localhost>
Attachment:
pgpAmdo9wz0HT.pgp
Description: OpenPGP Digital Signature