[Scons-dev] Mercurial remote tracking

[anatoly techtonik]

On Sun, Jan 31, 2016 at 7:43 PM, Russel Winder <russel at winder.org.uk> wrote:
> On Sun, 2016-01-31 at 13:12 +0300, anatoly techtonik wrote:
>> […]
>>
>> Qt allows to build beautiful interfaces. Don't you agree with that?
>
> As does GTK+3, Cocoa, wxWidgets, etc. The toolkit is only an enabler,
> the UI designer and implementer have to the really hard work.

So back to your first message, Qt is not guilty in that person who
coded the interface doesn't have a sufficient design skills and if
he used GTK+ the interface is likely to be ugly as well.

> […]
>> You avoid rebasing in Git? Why?
>
> It can cause extra work, and what is the point.

Catching magical bugs from merges that join code that was too far
away causes much more extra work than just rebasing your branch.
What kind of extra work can be caused by rebase?

> I think the only use
> case for rebase (other than with the svn plugin) is to create
> changesets for pull requests from a repository that has never been
> published.

I don't see the connection. You send pull request from your branch,
and this branch is not merged, not reviewed, may be dropped at all.
In Git world people don't base his work on such branches. Not that
much in Mercurial, so "rebases are evil" is a Mercurial way of doing
things.

> I tend to publish repositories and take pull requests, so
> when creating the final pull request, to rebase would be to invalidate
> rather than simply amend, history.

There is a logical disconnection in your post. You say you take pull
requests, but then say that rebase invalidates history only when pull
requests are created. There are two logical outcomes:

1. You don't use rebases, because you don't create pull requests
2. You wound not use rebase, because it "invalidates" history

An interesting observation is that amend is not "invalidation" of
history, so when you erase previous change and commit message
it is not invalidation?

If you care about history, use Mercurial.

> […]
>>
>> what's the point of "rather use Git" if you don't rebase? Do you use
>> GitHub - is that the reason?
>
> This single most important reason is transient in-repo branches.
> Mercurial persistent named branches are a right royal pain, Git
> internal branches are great for feature working.

Google doesn't know what is "transient in-repo branch". You say
that persistent branches are a royal pain, so you prefer to dispose
of branch (and lose history of what branch was merged, right?). If
you don't rebasing, you need HG bookmarks. You history will be
save and sound with them.
-- 
anatoly t.