On 16 September 2015 at 06:10, Stephen J. Turnbull <step...@xemacs.org> wrote: > The only thing that hg really lost badly on > IMO was "named branches", and that's been fixed with bookmarks.
FWIW, I still find bookmarks confusing to use compared to git branches. I don't know whether that's because bitbucket doesn't support them well, or whether I don't know all the details of bookmarks, but they just seem to get me in a muddle. For example, my usual workflow is (in a local clone of my fork on github) git checkout -b featureX ... hack ... git commit git push -u origin featureX # Push the local branch to github and set as remote tracking # later, on a different PC git pull git checkout featureX # Sets up a remote tracking branch ... hack ... git commit git push # Finally, make a PR via the github UI # Once the PR is accepted git branch -d featureX # Remove my local branch, deleting all of the no longer required changesets I don't know of an equivalent of remote tracking branches in Mercurial. Maybe bookmarks work that way by default? I seem to remember that when I tried out bookmarks, bitbucket either didn't support them, or did so pretty badly. Also, my workflow involves 2 separate PCs, and I use my personal github forks to share work in progress between them. Mercurial makes it very difficult to edit "published" history, and I can't tell it that my bitbucket repo doesn't count as "published" (as far as I know). Git lets me do what I want (with some "are you sure?" prompts when I force-push a rebased/edited branch, for example). On the other hand, I *love* Mercurial queues. I'd happily use them for work-in-progress editing as a replacement for some of my uses of git branches. But they are essentially local-only, and it's basically not practical to share them between my 2 PCs via bitbucket, as far as I can tell. (I know you can version the patch queue, and share patch queues on bitbucket, but it's under-documented and clumsy, whereas git branches work exactly the same as they do locally...) Having said all of this, the main reason I switched from Mercurial to Git, like many others, was for github. Once I did, I learned how to do a lot of things in git that I hadn't been able to do in Mercurial (it was some time back, and they may not even have been possible, like history editing) and now I find that even if Mercurial does have the feature these days, the cost of learning how it works puts me off. So my Mercurial use remains at the very basic "just enough to use it when I have to" level. Paul _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
