On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 08:55:05PM -0700, Greg A. Woods wrote: > For one, Mercurial has no staging area. That removes one level of > the three-level hierarchy from my toolset. It’s hard to identify > exactly when in my workflow this causes issues, but I’ve started to > notice it. For example, it’s not possible to commit a hunk from my > editor like I can with git and vim-gitgutter. > > I do the same with magit -- the staging area is a supreme benefit!
The staging area is a general point of contention, even in the git world. Interactive commits (commit -i) and incrementally amending changes pretty much cover the general use cases without all the cognitive load another level of changes has. > Mercurial also collapses all changes within a pull request > (changeset) into a single commit. That removes the meaningful > difference between the top level (pull request) and the mid level > (commit) that I find helpful to narrate. There is some ability when > working locally to create a bunch of commits like I would in git, > and then later squash them all using hg histedit. But my reviewers > can’t see the individual commits, nor can they be seen or reverted > individually in the long term project history. > > If this is the case it would also seem to be a major drawback to > Mercurial. There are further comments that suggest this may not be > quite so bad as Kun makes it sound, and indeed that part of his problem > might actually be specific to the workflow that his employer forces, but > there's also some ongoing doubt about this. I have no idea what the OP is talking about. Mercurial doesn't have pull requests, neither does git BTW. So this is about some specific web UI or review tool, but I don't even know which one. Joerg