> Just to pile on: I think it's important to talk about Mercurial's > advantages. Many of us accept that this is a change that had to happen > at some level, and are just looking to hang our hat on something that > is better than its TeamWare equivalent. These things _do_ exist -- > the ability to restore a workspace to an arbitrary tag, for example -- > but they merit reemphasis. Also, I would like to know the issues that > we think are fixable in Mercurial, versus those things that are so > baked in that they cannot change. (I believe that the issue of a single > comment per changeset is in the latter category -- which is a damned > shame -- but it would be good to get a more official word on that.)
FWIW, the one-comment-per-changeset is not baked in. That is, we can fix "hg recommit" to automatically separate things out, and fix some related annoyances like the slowness of "hg list", provided we're willing to go back to maintaining an "active" file. There are also some ideological barriers -- e.g., one argument for a single changeset is that it was tested as a whole -- but I've never found those arguments compelling. -- meem
