That post helped, and bookmarks might get the job done, but the mercurial culture doesn't seem to encourage them compared to branches. As a result, you tend to find a lot more separate mercurial repositories than single repos with bookmarks, and a lot more named branches with hard-to-eliminate commits as well (since even "closing" a branch doesn't really get rid of it).

> hg commit --amend, hg histedit, hg record (but hg crecord is much nicer).

> They're built-in, but you have to flip them on the last two with a config switch.

And that's the fundamental attitude that I can't stand in mercurial's culture: "careful, you might accidentally throw away that information you specifically wanted to throw away". Those commands aren't available by default because the culture doesn't encourage that workflow, so even if you use them for your own personal workflow you'll tend to find a lot more junk commits and forever-remembered branch names in the average mercurial repository.

I might have read this wrong, but safety for newbies doesn't sound all that bad to me.

History editing in git is not unsafe: because it's a part of the default set of tools, git offers functionality like the reflog to keep track of old history locally and avoid losing it. It's extremely difficult to permanently lose content in a git repository even using the history editing commands; it's always just a "git reflog" away.

It's not technically unsafe, but it's unsafe from a UI point of view. It obviously confuses some inexperienced people (witness the confusion in this thread), making them feel helpless and like their work has been destroyed, even if it hasn't. Both git and hg actually have lots of fallbacks so that work is never lost, but without experience, these fallbacks may not be obvious.

Hg's rewriting extensions are sometimes disabled by default for this reason: until people understand how they work, they shouldn't use them. If they try to use them, hg tells them how to enable these features.

History editing in Git is actually perfectly safe. The old commits will (at least initially) still be there, though you may need "git fsck --unreachable" to locate them if you don't remember the hashes or have them in your reflog anymore.

What is unsafe in Git is garbage collection. Commits that aren't reachable from either a branch or the reflog will be deleted after a grace period (assuming that you don't disable garbage collection entirely). More importantly, unreachable commits will also not be pushed with "git push" (which means that if your laptop blows up, you may not be able to recover them from a repository server).

This happens not directly as a consequence of history editing, but generally because a branch is being pointed to a new commit or removed (which also implicitly happens during history editing).

> Those commands aren't available by default because the culture doesn't encourage that workflow

That's not the reason. The reason is that they want to keep the standard interface to hg minimal. Unfortunately, I cannot find a citation for that right now.

That said, I, too, would appreciate having more standard extensions enabled by default. But direct your disagreement to the idea that hg should have a minimal standard interface instead of making up reasons :)