On Thu, 2009-01-29 at 08:37 -0500, erik quanstrom wrote: > > and as you well point out, the skils of a schizophrenic monkey for > > managing local changes. > > well then, please show me how hg/git or whatever would save > me from the situation outlined. how would hg/git know that > i was really using some code which i had never locally modified > and was then removed on sources?
it wouldn't. but the fact that it encourages a three step process: 1. get the immutable history (whatever it is) but don't modify your write buffer 2. inspect history. Git offers quite a few nice tools to manage your local changes in the interim, but it is conceptually similar to formatting an extra fossil buffer with a score corresponding to the "tip" of the history and simply comparing it to what you have. 3. only when you are absolutely certain, you combine your local changes with whatever history brought you, then you commit and get the new score makes it far less dangerous. With replica (on those two or three occasions that I used it) it seemed that your only option is to "hope for the best". It doesn't manage history. It manages your write buffer. Thanks, Roman.
