to git or not to git

David Boddie david at
Thu Sep 6 11:42:35 UTC 2018

On Wed Sep 5 19:44:20 UTC 2018, Alessandro Rubini wrote:

> Today I read some (most?) documents on the project's site, and I see
> that it's very similar, but on the flip side it looks like interactive
> rebases are not as easy as they are with git, and I really use them a
> lot (I write several features and test them all together, so I often
> squash my fixes in the original commit before pushing).

Yes, I think there's a compromise between flexibility and simplicity.
Mercurial seems to be focused more on simplicity and ease of use, but that
might make certain tasks difficult to achieve depending on your workflow.

> Also, I don't like much the data model (which is why, I think, changing
> the whole history is not as easy as with git).

I think that is regarded as a feature in Mercurial. History rewriting may
be a useful feature in git but it could have limited use if your repositories
are already public. When Mercurial and git were evaluated at a former
employer the ability to rewrite the history was counted as an advantage for
git despite the problem that it would have been very difficult to justify
using it on the company's public repositories.

Still, it's useful to have the option to do it, especially for private repos.

> Thank you none the less, it was interesting reading.

You're welcome.


More information about the Discussion mailing list