Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Yup, and then you had no real history. And one big commit. Super useful, not.



You're just assuming that. And, despite your snark, you are completely incorrect about what my commits looked like.


Ay, I meant the general you, and the snark was directed to VCSes that lack an index and rebase.

You wrote this:

> > > When I worked with VCS that couldn't rebase, my strategy was simply to not commit until everything was perfect. I had a local branch. It was just not version controlled.

if I were to do that (and I have) with anything other than Git, I'd have a hard time splitting up the commits in the end. Mercurial has `hg record`, which is akin to an atomic `git add -p && git commit`. I don't think Fossil has anything even like Mercurial's `hg record`, and it famously lacks an index/staging area.

(So Mercurial has an index! but as always with Git features belatedly adopted by Mercurial, it's a pain to use in Mercurial. If you want to stop in the middle your choices are: say 'N' and commit what hunks you've accepted so far, or quit and abandon the hunk selection work you've done so far. And you don't get to edit hunks.)

> > > When I later started using git, my workflows simply became safer and easier.

Mine too.


Ah. I see what you were saying now, but for me it was just more work to split things manually. The end result didn't change. At least, not much.

This highlights one of the benefits to framing comments in a positive manner: they tend to be inoffensive even when misunderstood.


`hg record` has been supplanted by `hg commit -i` (for `--interactive`), which has an improved UI that is certainly more flexible than the old `hg record`.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: