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

[Zenaan Harkness]

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...
URL: http://www.antlr.org/pipermail/stringtemplate-interest/attachments/20120118/25f19304/attachment.html