On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 8:36 AM, Martin C. Martin
<
martin@...> wrote:
>
>
> So you want to encourage people to check in code to a branch fairly often.
> Mercurial is better at this than Git, Git makes code-hiding the standard
> way of operating. e.g. "get rebase" destroys an entire line of history. I
> don't know about bazzar.
>
I think the phrase "destroys an entire line of history" may be
misleading to folks not familiar with how this works. You really
aren't destroying a bunch of changes, you are just moving them to
another point in the tree, right? In practice, this seems to work
very well.
It may very well be that Mercurial is better at this, I have no idea.
I am not sure I really understand why the guy says that Git's rebase
promotes code hiding. The developer still gets to decide when/if he
shares the changes he has made.
jb
--
Jeff Brown
Director North American Operations
G2One Inc.
http://www.g2one.com/Autism Strikes 1 in 166
Find The Cause ~ Find The Cure
http://www.autismspeaks.org/---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this list, please visit:
http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email
