[Haskell-cafe] Darcs vs Git

[Mike Meyer]

On Sun, Nov 15, 2015 at 12:40 AM Bardur Arantsson <spam at scientician.net>
wrote:

> I tend to find that people who want to preserve what happened have a
> different way of working where they tend to try to create good commits
> as they go whereas I (post-git) just create a bunch of "WIP" commits
> for almost every change regardless of whether it compiles or not and
> then clean up the "history" for readability once the full change is
> ready for pushing to the world. I used to be in the former group, but
> have found that moving to the in the latter workflow is incredibly
> liberating. It means that I don't waste nearly as much time checking
> that everything compiles (etc.) for every little change I make. I just
> check all that stuff for the final series of commits.
>

Well, I want to preserve history but tend to commit whenever it's
convenient as well. This started when I moved to perforce - because
branches are cheap, so just create them whenever you need one,and make sure
what you merge compiles. So I branched whenever I thought a change would
take more than a single session - and finished with mercurial, where all
work happens on what's essentially a branch anyway, with push as merge.

I agree, it's critical to have a tool that adopts to your workflow, but
it's also important that other people don't break your workflow, because
like languages the claim of "if you don't like it, just don't use it" is
bullshit. So while mercurial has "rebase" so you can use it if you need it,
it's disabled by default and flagged as being for expert use, not something
that's part of the daily workflow.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/haskell-cafe/attachments/20151115/57f9f27e/attachment.html>