Advocacy vs. git

[Theodore Tso]

On Sat, Apr 25, 2009 at 01:59:41AM +0200, Arne Babenhauserheide wrote:
> 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). 

Yeah, but the annoying thing about "hg rollback" is that you lose the
commit message; you have to save it by hand, or type it all over
again.  

It wouldn't be hard to create a hg extension that extracted the commit
message before doing the hg rollback, as well as saving files were
included in the commit, so it could support partial commits
automatically.  I just never got around to doing it, partially because
I'm not a python programmer.

(I'm more of a C, perl, and shell script kind of a guy, which also
made git more appealing since it was easier for me to work on
enhancements that I could submit upstream.  Again, another example of
personal preference, and _not_ a matter of "killer features", in
either direction.)

       	  	    	      	      	  - Ted