Python Goes Mercurial
jeremiah.dodds at gmail.com
Fri Apr 3 10:45:31 CEST 2009
On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 9:02 PM, andrew cooke <andrew at acooke.org> wrote:
> Echo wrote:
> > 2009/4/2 Jeremiah Dodds <jeremiah.dodds at gmail.com>
> >> The one thing that makes me want to use git more than any other dvcs is
> >> that you don't have to create a new directory for branches. This may be
> >> possible in other dvcs's , but git is the only one I've seen advertise
> >> the
> >> capability.
> > That is the main reason why I switched to git at my work.
> > As for the git rebase, I don't ever plan on using that 'feature'. Even
> > though I would rather have had GvR pick git, I think he did a good job
> > deciding.
> please can you explain this? i can think of a couple of things you could
> mean, but neither of them seem to make much sense to me.
> one is that hg only allows you one branch per repository. i checked the
> docs and that's not true - see 2/3 way down
> - which describes how you can branch in the repository and then swap your
> working copy between them.
It looks like basically the same thing is accomplishable in hg, but is a bit
discouraged (I am not experienced with hg, and haven't read the docs
thoroughly, so I could be off base here). In most (d)vcs's , there is
normally a one-to-one relationship between project branches and directories
on your filesystem. In git, there is normally a many-to-on relationship
between project branches and directories on your filesystem - branching is
cheap and easy, and you can branch for every little fix or feature you want
to do, keeping one directory with multiple logical development paths with
basically no pain.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Python-list