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.
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.
Isn’t this trivial in Git too? git branch --contains COMMIT ?
Given that Git and Mercurial were both created around April 2005 to serve the same purpose by very similar people for the same reason… I’d say it’s fair!
As one of the maintainers of Mercurial, I take great offense in this meme. ;)
It’s definitely up with Git in my opinion. I much prefer the branching in Mercurial.
It’s certainly very offensive to lump it in the same band as SVN and TFVC.
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”.
Isn’t this trivial in Git too?
git branch --contains COMMIT?Given that Git and Mercurial were both created around April 2005 to serve the same purpose by very similar people for the same reason… I’d say it’s fair!