Hacker News Reader

Comment by scott_karana | Hacker News Reader

I agree. The "alternative universes" that Git creates after rebases are hard to deal with once branches are published anywhere.

View on HN

This is probably due to an understanding of rebases, rebases should be used to bring your commits to the top of the stack for easy review in OSS projects.

Amazingly useful for making sure patches are easy to apply while following a remote branch.

My biggest problem with hg is the lack of real topic branches and how they become impossible to delete -- and having to use things like quilt on top to try to make local branches more sane -- but it's frustrating because it's not the same thing.

Wait, "quilt" as in the tool that manages patch files? That's still in use? Or is quilt a new Hg extension?

I think I meant queues. I was looking for the plugin and failing to find it, but it was basically a thing like quilt but an Hg extension. Was not a fan :)

> and having to use things like quilt on top to try to make local branches more sane

I consider Mercurial Queues as one of Mercurial's youthful mistakes. It was ok in 2005, but we have much better things with bookmarks, histedit, and rebase and even with hg commit --amend.

Evolve is basically the last nail in MQ's coffin.

Which is why every single tutorial of rebase you can find will explain that you should never rebase branches that have already been published.

Yes.

We were discussing the advantages of Mercurial having publishable rebases.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com