Thadah D. Denyse@lemmy.blahaj.zone to Programmer Humor@programming.devEnglish · 5 days agoVersion Controllemmy.blahaj.zoneimagemessage-square49fedilinkarrow-up1367arrow-down113
arrow-up1354arrow-down1imageVersion Controllemmy.blahaj.zoneThadah D. Denyse@lemmy.blahaj.zone to Programmer Humor@programming.devEnglish · 5 days agomessage-square49fedilink
minus-squarebleistift2@sopuli.xyzlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up5·5 days agoWhat could possibly be preferrable to git switch -c <branchname>?
minus-squarenogooduser@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up2·4 days agoIt’s not the mechanism of branching that I prefer. It’s the fact that Mercurial tags the commit with the name of the branch that it was committed to which makes it much easier to determine whether a commit is included in your current branch or not. Also, Mercurial has a powerful revision search feature built in which I love (https://www.mercurial-scm.org/doc/hg.1.html#revisions).
minus-squarebleistift2@sopuli.xyzlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up3·4 days agoI admit that I have been bitten by the fact that commits don’t have a “true home branch”.
What could possibly be preferrable to
git switch -c <branchname>?It’s not the mechanism of branching that I prefer.
It’s the fact that Mercurial tags the commit with the name of the branch that it was committed to which makes it much easier to determine whether a commit is included in your current branch or not.
Also, Mercurial has a powerful revision search feature built in which I love (https://www.mercurial-scm.org/doc/hg.1.html#revisions).
I admit that I have been bitten by the fact that commits don’t have a “true home branch”.