hg, git, fossil, ...

[Marko Rauhamaa]

Chris Angelico <rosuav at gmail.com>:

> Why fork the repo when you can just branch? That makes no sense.

Why branch when you can just fork? That makes no sense.

I see branches as conceptual clutter.

> One easy way is to never "git add" new files without immediately
> committing...

My original statement was there was no simple command to revert your
changes.

> then it's like lots of other source control systems.

Well, gladly, emacs's VC mode makes it look like lots of other VC
systems.

> You completely misuse "conflict", then. This is not a conflict. This
> is just a merge.

It is not a simple "git push," that's for sure. In linear development,
you can repeatedly do "git push", but if anybody has touched anything in
the meantime, you'll be blocked from doing that. The classic term for
the situation is a conflict. And the classic conflict resolution is
called a merge, which can be automatic or manual.

What I'm saying is that "git push" should almost always simply succeed,
and where there is an issue, of course you merge carefully, but you also
review your development discipline.


Marko