upvote

points

by locknitpicker9 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby BeetleB7 hours ago|
next
[-]
> I recall checking Mercurial back in the day and being puzzled by the lack of basic features such as the ability to stash changes. I also recalled that the community was dismissive of the lack of such a basic feature, with comments such as users could always create local branches,

I started with Mercurial, eventually got forced into git, and now use jujutsu.

Totally agree with the Mercurial developers: Just use a branch/bookmark. When I encountered it in git, it seemed neat, but became yet another concept/thing to clean up that you don't need to.

And lo and behold, after switching to jujutsu, everyone shows how you can do a stash using an (anonymous) branch.

Even though I used stash a lot in my git days, I don't miss it at all while using jujutsu. The benefit of jj is the ease with which one makes branches (without needing to name them). That's why you may not have liked the advice in mercurial - it wasn't the solution that was problematic, but that mercurial didn't make it as easy as it should have been.

(Same goes for index - no one misses it once they switch to jujutsu).

reply
upvoteby marcher9 hours ago|
prev|
[-]
It did have a kind of equivalent to stashes in the mq extension, but its interface was a bit esoteric compared to the rest of Hg, from what I remember.
reply
upvoteby voidnap8 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
A lot of features that git had by default had to be enabled as plugins in mercurial.

The plugins were usually shipped with mercurial so you didn't have to install them separately, but you needed to know that you had to enable them in a config. And I beleive this turned a lot of people off.

I think some of the extensions were very basic stuff like graph logging and colorized output -- and mq like you said. So it was kind of unfortunate that people got a bad impression of hg from that and bounced off.

reply
upvoteby amluto8 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
git rebase, for all its warts, was always better than mq. A failed mq-driven rewrite was destructive! (And it kind of had to be — if you were trying to edit revision 17, there was no number available for the original revision 17 because the schema didn’t allow two revisions numbered 17, so the original had be excised.)
reply