'. '

Talk:Mercurial vs. Subversion

From APIDesign

Revision as of 09:19, 12 July 2009 by (Talk)
(diff) ←Older revision | Current revision (diff) | Newer revision→ (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

<quote>Mercurial would refuse such integration asking the user A to svn update to latest version of the repository first. This is the correct behaviour. However it is not really clueless.</quote>

Not exactly. Mercurial would record the two changes as separate heads (implicit branches). And, by default, it would not allow pushing both to a central repo without a prior merge. But this is just a default. What typically bothers people is they need to merge the two heads to combine their effects. Which is, again, correct, but may seem to clutter history. So you can rebase, if you prefer, explicitly emulating what svn implicitly does.


Interesting note. Thanks. I copied it to main page. Feel free to edit it there. One question through. What you mean by rebase? I only found Git's rebase, but nothing for Mercurial. I know I can do:

# with some local changes
hg pull -u
hg ci -m "..."
hg push

and effectively do rebase before single commit. Or, in case I've already integrated my commit I can:

hg push # fails and I do not want 2nd head
hg rollback
hg pull -u
hg ci -m "..." 
hg push

But how exactly do rebase for multiple commits is not really clear to me. Maybe with hg strip? But this is getting complex, no cluelessness at all.

--JaroslavTulach 04:37, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

rebase is a Mercurial command. It is shipped as an official extension and needs to be explicitely activated in your hgrc, as it rewrites history.
rebase =
Personal tools