Advocacy vs. git

[rupert.thurner]

On Apr 25, 5:43 am, Steve Borho <st... at borho.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 10:19 PM, Theodore Tso <ty... at mit.edu> wrote:
> > 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.

thanks for the hint!

>
> >> 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.
>
> Since we're talking about an extension, this is really just a matter
> of automating hg qimport -r tip ; hg qrefresh -e ; hg qfinish tip
>
> But then again, any commit tool worth it's salt will remember your
> most recent commit messages and allow you to reuse them.

thats true :)

but does ammend not change the last commit, and when others get your
changeset its a clean one (instead of multiple, some of them just
fixing up typos) ?

rupert