On 2013-07-11 3:03 PM, Philipp Kewisch wrote:
On 7/11/13 8:00 PM, Ehsan Akhgari wrote:
On 2013-07-11 11:26 AM, Philipp Kewisch wrote:
On 7/11/13 12:05 AM, Justin Lebar wrote:
On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 3:25 AM, Philipp Kewisch <mozi...@kewis.ch>
wrote:
git rebase --interactive. It is /far/ more powerful than mq for this
use-case.
I even have a |git qrebase| alias for this.
https://github.com/jlebar/moz-git-tools
Looks very interesting, lots of nice tools I could make use of :) I have
the feeling git is very powerful, but the commands to use it are not
very intuitive. You have a repository full of commands I would expect
git to have included.
git rebase -i is more powerful, *and* more flexible, than mq is. Now
you may not like git or not want to learn how to use interactive rebase,
but arguing that mq workflow is better than what git can offer is flawed.
Oh no, sorry if this came over wrong. I agree that git is much more
powerful in quite a few aspects. I like git add -p much better than the
qrecord extension, and the interactive rebase is quite nice too. git
status is much more verbose, and there are likely a few other goodies I
missed.
See Justin's reply please. As far as I know, crecord doesn't do rebase.
I'm just saying that doing things in git has a higher entry barrier. hg
and mq commands seem more logical at times (why does git checkout handle
both reverting files to a revision and checking out branches?) or just
require less typing (git log origin..HEAD vs hg out), which in turn
means less need for the user to set up aliases.
Yes, git's UI sucks, and that is a well known fact. I do agree with that!
Cheers,
Ehsan
_______________________________________________
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
