Comment by windward

5 hours ago

Mercurial can't rebase without an extension, or force push. Are you using a definition of strictly superior that means it has fewer features?

5 comments

windward

Reply
qsera  2 hours ago

Mercurial's model is different from Git that these things you list does not make sense there.

Rebase does not make sense in Mercurial because it has the concept of fixed branches. A commit is permanently linked to the branch on which it was made. So you are supposed to use merges.

Same with force-pushing.

  • windward  2 hours ago

    I know. It's an opinion about how to develop that a lot of people hold - a declining proportion, mind you, like Mecurial's declining market share - and it's one that they're able to represent in Git's model, with Git's features. They're even able to do it without exposing me to it. But the same isn't true in reverse. Strictly superior?

    Believe me, I tried to have an open mind about it. Then one day I was getting ready to go on a work trip with a half-finished feature on my work laptop, and realised there was simply no in-model way for backing that wip up to the repo. If I lost my laptop, I lost the progress. mercurial-scm fails at SCM.

    • qsera  6 minutes ago

      >in-model way for backing that wip up to the repo.

      That is because you have this notion of a "clean history", (which IIUC prevented you from making this permanent wip commit) which in reality does not have a lot of use. For most project, "useful history" or "real history" is better than a "clean" history.

      That is what mercurial caters to.