[stringtemplate-interest] anybody care to comment on bitbucket.org?

[Erwin Mueller]

On Monday, January 09, 2012 02:54:19 PM John D. Mitchell wrote:
> On Jan 9, 2012, at 14:45 , Barrie Treloar wrote:
> [...]
> 
> > Can you provide specifics?
> > Since I'm new to both, they both were not obvious with a svn mentality.
> > hg definitely didn't stand out as being easier than git.
> 
> I think you're the first person coming from svn that I've ever heard say
> that.
> 
> Hg has a command set and lingo that's an easier transition from svn/cvs. Git
> has a command set that is baroque at best and they use their own whacked
> definition for terms like "branch" that is wildly different from what
> branch means in pretty much every other scm.
> 
> Hg and Git are comparable on a feature basis.
> 
> However, Hg and Git are built with very different philosophies. Git is
> perfectly happy to allow mutation of history. Hg, on the other hand, is
> very much against rewriting history (but there are extensions that allow
> for it when you really do need it, if ever).
> 
> Github is definitely better than Bitbucket on many things. Now that
> Atlassian has bought bitbucket, there's hope that the gap will close.
> 

I'm using Git for over 2 years now since I switched from SVN. I don't really 
know what there is "baroque" or "whacked definitions", do you care do explain 
a little bit more?

Rewriting history is a good thing, as long as it's not published. For example, 
you can amend commits, if you forgot something, you can re-order commits to 
make your changes more understandable for others, etc. As long as your commits 
are not published to others, who cares if you rewrite your history.

-- 
Erwin Mueller
http://www.anr-institute.com/emblog - My site
http://www.anr-institute.com/ - Advanced Natural Research Institute GmbH