Hacker News Reader

Comment by jibsen | Hacker News Reader

I moved from the other way from Mercurial to Git a while back.

I started using Mercurial because the basic interface and operations appeared more natural to me. Also, at least at the time, the Windows support was better in Mercurial.

After working with some repos using Git, I fell in love with the staging area, and the ability to selectively stage parts of files. I am sure Mercurial has something similar, but it was built into Git.

The only thing that bugs me is that the Windows port appears to be stuck at 1.9.5 (yes, I know it's open-source so I should go fix it instead of complaining).

View on HN

> The only thing that bugs me is that the Windows port appears to be stuck at 1.9.5

What? What gave you that impression? That's a really old version. Here's the last 3.3 Windows build:

http://bitbucket.org/tortoisehg/files/downloads/tortoisehg-3...

This was from the downloads page:

http://mercurial.selenic.com/downloads

Edit: Oh, crap, I completely misread that. You were talking about the git Windows version. Oh well. Mercurial Windows versions are staying quite up-to-date, thanks to the tireless work of Steve Borho.

I think they're talking about the git port for windows.

Building Git on Windows is fairly easy. I am running version 2.1.0. Some instructions here: http://ufasoli.blogspot.in/2014/10/building-and-installing-g...

Yes! Partial staging of files is amazing and I miss it sorely when I use hg. There must be a way to do it.

Use crecord. We're working on moving it into core:

https://bitbucket.org/edgimar/crecord/overview

If you want a "staging area" just use a temporary commit and keep ammending it with `hg crecord --amend`. There really is no difference between a commit and a staging area except the name. If you're afraid of pushing your WIP commit, use `hg crecord --secret` or `hg commit --secret` so that your commit will be in the secret phase and won't be pushed until you declare it draft with `hg phase --draft`.

That's a neat trick. I think it's doing it a disservice to say there's no difference except the name, though. While true, I think anyone who prefers hg to git (self included) shouldn't undersell the importance of interface.

I haven't used hg but as a Git user who uses this feature several times per day, this would be a complete deal breaker!

Last summer, a project I was working on used hg. Missing partial staging is the only reason I haven't completely switched over from git.

I use patch queues.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com