[Python-Dev] PEP: Collecting information about git

[Nikolaus Rath]

On Sep 16 2015, Paul Moore <p.f.moore at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 16 September 2015 at 06:10, Stephen J. Turnbull <stephen at 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?

Where exactly did you run into problems? I think you should have gotten
the same result with the following hg commands (if your remote is
non-ancient):

.. hack ..
hg commit
hg bookmark featureX
hg push -B featureX origin

# later
hg pull -B featureX origin
... hack ..
hg commit
hg push


The "remote tracking branch" in Mercurial always exists, but it doesn't
have a special name. In hg, branches do not need to have names, they are
identified by their commit id. Assigning names is pure convenience, this
is why they're called "bookmarks".

> 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).

In general you can do that by configuring the repository with

      [phases]
      publish = False

However, I believe BitBucket doesn't allow you to do that. But that's
not hg's fault.

> Git lets me do what I want (with some "are you sure?" prompts
> when I force-push a rebased/edited branch, for example).

Same with hg. "hg phase -d -f <rev>" forces the status of "rev" to
'draft'.


Best,
-Nikolaus


-- 
GPG encrypted emails preferred. Key id: 0xD113FCAC3C4E599F
Fingerprint: ED31 791B 2C5C 1613 AF38 8B8A D113 FCAC 3C4E 599F

             »Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a Banana.«