[d1zzy]

Seems to be popular at Facebook.[1]

Where I work Mercurial has been an option for some time now (no Git unfortunately) and coming from Git I must say I really love how it does some of its things:

- hg split: split a commit into as many different commits as you like using an interactive patch editor (you can fold/collapse hunks, can edit them textually, can select which lines of the hunk should be applied). It will automatically rebase all the commits on top of the commit being split, ofc

- hg histedit: a sort of "git rebase -i" where you get a list of commits that you can manipulate by reordering them, merging, dropping

- hg amend -i/commit -i: interactive commit or amending of a commit, it's using that awesome interactive patch editor I mentioned earlier to select what exactly gets committed/amended

- same for "hg shelve -i" (a sort of "git stash")

The closest thing in Git to that interactive patch editor was doing "git add -p" which is not as good.

[1] https://engineering.fb.com/2014/01/07/core-data/scaling-merc...

[infogulch]

Of course, you could do these same things with git if you just recite this or that obscure sequence of ~~shell commands~~ demonic rituals. These are common and reasonable things for vcs users to want to do, and gits ux for them is a steaming pile.

[truncate]

I heavily use Magit on Emacs to edit my patches interactively. It is my favorite way to interact with Git.

I think Visual Studio Code has something of its own. Would be great to have that part of the Git command line, but I guess shouldn't be hard to make one, considering its already out there on so many IDEs.

[dceddia]

I've been using lazygit [0] for a lot of use cases like this and it's been great. It's a terminal UI with a bunch of shortcuts. In particular, the partial commit is awesome, as is the ease of amending.

A couple others mentioned Magit which I think is similar.

FWIW I learned Mercurial before I learned Git, and SVN before that. Mercurial was great. I still think its commands made more sense than the Git ones, especially coming from SVN.

0: https://github.com/jesseduffield/lazygit

[klodolph]

Mercurial is used at Facebook, but it is heavily customized and goes through Phabricator. Just like Google uses Piper, which is “like Perforce” and goes through Critique.

[throwaway3699]

Not quite. Google also has an internal mercurial tool (layered over perforce/piper), and I think it's the more popular tool at this point.

[talhah]

I'm sure they use a custom version of mercurial and still probably use git as well. But that's really interesting, never knew about this. Like another other commenter mentioned I also use magit in interactive mode but I'm going to give mercurial a try now.

[zests]

I do this using magit. I’ve never split a commit directly (I’m sure its possible) but manipulate commits at the file/hunk/line granularity which I did not think was possible with git.

Same with histedit, that’s in magit as well.

[livvelupp]

What's the other options besides hg if it ain't git?

[Shorel]

SQLite uses Fossil.

[MayeulC]

Bazaar used to be an option: http://bazaar.canonical.com/en/

Pijul is very promising: https://pijul.org/ and https://pijul.org/manual/why_pijul.html

Merging A in B should yield the same result as the opposite with Pijul, etc.

[pdw]

darcs is still actively developed and it has a niche in the Haskell community.

Ubuntu might still use Bazaar.

[jen20]

BitKeeper is one, Fossil is another. Then there are non-DVCS systems like Subversion, Perforce, VSTS etc.

[jimbob45]

SVN still works well for our company.