[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: preferring mercurial
From: |
Stephen J. Turnbull |
Subject: |
Re: preferring mercurial |
Date: |
Fri, 10 Jan 2014 21:44:56 +0900 |
Nathan Trapuzzano writes:
> "Git got branches right, Mercurial (and Bazaar, etc.) didn't".
> This essay describes the difference well:
>
> http://xentac.net/2012/01/19/the-real-difference-between-git-and-mercurial.html
Except that this blog fails to mention bookmarks and the rev query
language, like I did earlier in this thread. The combination of those
two changes the game quite a bit I suspect.
I still like git's open data structures compared to Mercurial's
revlogs (for example, it's not obvious what happens if you rollback a
bookmarked commit), but once you have proper refs and a query
language, it should be possible to do most of the things git does as
git does them.
- preferring mercurial, Neal Becker, 2014/01/09
- Re: preferring mercurial, Tim Visher, 2014/01/09
- Re: preferring mercurial, Rüdiger Sonderfeld, 2014/01/09
- Re: preferring mercurial, François Orieux, 2014/01/09
- Re: preferring mercurial, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2014/01/10
- Re: preferring mercurial, Stefan Monnier, 2014/01/10
- Re: preferring mercurial, Eric S. Raymond, 2014/01/10
- Re: preferring mercurial, Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso, 2014/01/10
- Re: preferring mercurial, Eric S. Raymond, 2014/01/10
- Re: preferring mercurial, Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso, 2014/01/10
- Re: preferring mercurial, Eli Zaretskii, 2014/01/10
- Re: preferring mercurial, Richard Stallman, 2014/01/11
- Re: preferring mercurial, Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso, 2014/01/10
- Re: preferring mercurial, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2014/01/10