[stringtemplate-interest] anybody care to comment on bitbucket.org?
zen at freedbms.net
Tue Jan 17 16:08:31 PST 2012
On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 09:54, John D. Mitchell <jdmitchell at gmail.com>wrote:
> 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.
By default, public repositories are not rebase-able. The fact that
something _can_ be achieved should not be held against it.
And locally, if you don't want to rebase, don't. I find that on small,
private-only "feature" branches or "experiment" branches, that rebasing is
a useful tool. So is cherry picking. Knowing when to use a powerful tool is
part of being a good technician/ programmer.
Git was a steep learning curve for me. "Pro Git" book I find excellent.
Bought a paper copy.
I used bitkeeper, arch/tla, and cvs etc. in the past. I think others have
said, but git stash is a godsend, as well as other bits and bobs.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the stringtemplate-interest