Advocacy vs. git

[Kevin Bullock]

On 24 Apr 2009, at 4:59 PM, Theodore Tso wrote:

> Two final points that I think are worth making.  First, "git rebase
> -i" is nicer than MQ simply because you don't have to do much in the
> way of setup.  If you have done a series of commits, and then decide
> that, before you've pushed them out, that you want to squash two
> commits together, and perhaps edit the commit log for a third, you can
> use "git rebase -i" for quickly and easily.  With MQ you have to spend
> a bit more time setting up the mq.  The functionality is equivalent,
> but it's just perhaps less convient for ad hoc use.

Yeah, I must say, the rebase method is more attractive to me than mq  
for one reason: when working on a topic branch, you just commit  
normally. I don't have to context-switch to thinking about 'working on  
a patch'.

But then again, that's why I only break out mq for certain cases;  
usually I'm okay with just merging from upstream when necessary. What  
I actually do looks something like this:

~/myproject $ hg clone default topic-branch
~/myproject $ cd topic-branch
~/myproject/topic-branch $ hg branch topic-branch
(make some commits to the branch)
~/myproject/topic-branch $ hg pull -u
~/myproject/topic-branch $ hg merge
(make some more commits)
~/myproject/topic-branch $ cd ../default
~/myproject/default $ hg pull ../topic-branch
~/myproject/default $ hg merge topic-branch

Pacem in terris / Mir / Shanti / Salaam / Heiwa
Kevin R. Bullock