Request for rebaseif extension to be provided by default with rebase

[Marcus Lindblom]

Sune Foldager skrev 2011-05-23 16:15:
> On 2011-05-23 16:09, Adrian Buehlmann wrote:
 >
>> 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.

Doing a plain 'hg rebase' with massive conflicts is daunting. Merge is 
safer then, but gives more rubbish. Hence you need to decide. Help with 
that decision is appreciated for non-VC wizards.

>> 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

If you're not a mercurial wizard, you might have a hard time to decide, 
and would like some help from the computer to check if rebase or merge 
is the best option.

This is a feature that helps the user separate new functionality from 
the integration step of said functionality, and prevents information 
loss if manual intervention is needed to combine these two pieces of data.

DVCS:es are good, but the entry barrier need to go down. I love 
Mercurial's ease-of-use and plain & clearly spoken UI, but some parts of 
VC:ing are inherently tricky and I think it's worthwhile to try and help 
those.

Some people even have a problem with regular SVN commit/update for 
crying out loud. These would be helped by using DVCS:es, since you can 
do easier rollbacks and local commits, but merge/rebase decisions are 
difficult and I (and apparently a few more) think rebaseif is a good 
helping tool here.

IMHO, I think you'd have to think a bit outside the linux hacker box to 
appreciate rebaseif's merits. ;)

Cheers,
/Marcus