Request for rebaseif extension to be provided by default with rebase

[Sune Foldager]

On 2011-05-23 16:09, Adrian Buehlmann wrote:
>On 2011-05-22 20:30, Sébastien Deleuze wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> In my company, we are using Mercurial with more and more people, and
>> while we setup training and guidelines, I would like to share some
>> feedbacks about one point that make Mercurial a magnitude of order
>> easier to use : rebaseif extension
>> (http://mercurial.selenic.com/wiki/RebaseIfExtension).
>>
>> We are using continuous integration on 1 or 2 branches of our
>> projects, some people are usually working on the same branch. We don't
>> encourage peolple to push anonymous heads because it does not work
>> well with continous integration, and people (especially beginners) can
>> be quickly lost.
>>
>> Before discovering rebasif extension, we had some real issues to give
>> people guidelines about the right thing to do after pulling remote
>> changes. 80% of times, remote and local changes does not concern same
>> files, so rebase is fine, but in 20% of time, when there is some
>> conflict rebase can quickly become a nightmare.
>>
>> Since we have deployed rebaseif and updated our guidelines to tell
>> people to do a "pull --rebaseif" when their push failed, we have seen
>> a really strong improvement of Mercurial ease of use, people are happy
>> and efficiency is better.
>>
>> When it is possible without conflicts, a rebase is done.
>> When this is not possible, a merge occur with kdiff3 configured by default.
>> Projects history are now far better (no more bullshit merge).
>
>I think that starting e.g. kdiff3 on a conflict during 'hg pull --rebase' is
>indeed daunting for users.

Yes... this is also why I never use pull --rebase or fetch, and we constructed
our workflow at Edlund (where I work) so people initiate the rebasing or
merging manually.

>FWIW, I would never use 'hg pull --rebase' myself. I prefer to do a plain pull,
>and then look at what I got. And then I decide what to do next myself.

+1