Re: Prefer Mercurial instead of git

["Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso" <jordigh@octave.org>]

On Sun, 2014-01-05 at 14:25 +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso:
> 
> > On Sun, 2014-01-05 at 21:17 +0900, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> >> The problem is that Mercurial isn't git. Git definitely is the
> >> leader now. Git is "cool". Git is more flexible (neither Mercurial
> >> nor Bazaar can support workflows that use colocated branches
> >> heavily).
> >
> > Huh, bookmarks? We use "collocated branches" heavily in GNU Octave
> > during our GSoC experience, and it worked just fine. Our GSoC students
> > were each working on their bookmark, and we've pulled their code into
> > mainline when it was ready.
> 
> Back when I needed this the last time, I couldn't find documentation
> how bookmarks interacted with merging.

The term you want is "divergent bookmark", I think:

    http://mercurial.aragost.com/kick-start/en/bookmarks/#divergent-bookmarks

> It also wasn't entirely clear to me how to prepare the final patch
> useful for submitting it upstream (I wasn't a committer, and it had
> to be a single, flattened patch).

You can use hg histedit to fold your commits into one. Then you can
use hg export to get a diff with enough metadata to recreate your
commit in another hg clone.

- Jordi G. H.