[Rusky]

The biggest advantage of Git's storage model is imo the reflog- I have irretrievably lost work to Mercurial Queues, and that's virtually impossible in Git.

[azakai]

If you version your MQ, you can never lose data in it.

In git, if you rewrite history, you lose information - you can no longer see what things looked like before you rewrote it.

Disclaimer: I use git myself and prefer it. But the hg and MQ bashing in the comments here is unfair.

[tene]

In git, if you rewrite history, your old history is still available via the reflog; nothing is lost.

[Rusky]

When I used MQ, it was to modify history in a way equivalent to some of git's features. Versioning that defeats the purpose.

[gcp]

The MQ versioning repo is separate from the main versioning repo. So I don't see how one follows from the other here. You can perfectly modify history in the main repo and version that editing in the MQ repo. The main repo will look clean because the history editing is versioned in the MQ repo.

[Rusky]

Ah, that's good to know. I was not aware of that.

[gcp]

I really, really, really hate to write in defense of Mercurial, but you are aware that Mercurial Queues are versionable themselves, right?

If you are, can you explain what happened (and perhaps save our asses?)