Advocacy vs. git

[Arne Babenhauserheide]

Am Freitag 24 April 2009 23:59:02 schrieb Theodore Tso:
> They might be more _painful_ to use, sure.  So for me, if we must talk
> about "killer features", the one which is why I prefer to use git is
> "git commit --amend".  I will very often create a commit, and then
> about 30 seconds later, realize that I had typo'ed a comment, or the
> feature could be made even better if I made some further changes.  So
> at that point, I'll quickly edit the source files, make the further
> enhancements, and then use "git commit --amend foo.c".  I do this
> ***far*** more often than I use rebase.

I kinda do the same - just that I rollback ("hg roll") and use my command 
history to commit again (hit the up arrowkey twice + enter). 

Naturally this doesn't work as well when I want to amend a partial commit. 

For that a Mercurial equivalent to "--amend" would be nice. Maybe "hg record 
--amend" which would only ask about each _new_ change.

Best wishes, 
Arne

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 
   - singing a part of the history of free software -
              http://infinite-hands.draketo.de
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
Url : http://selenic.com/pipermail/mercurial/attachments/20090425/6c252d7b/attachment.pgp