I know Rebase is a (bundled) extension, while Graft is a core feature (that replaced the Transplant (bundled) extension).
graft
is documented as:
copy changes from other branches onto the current branch
This command uses Mercurial's merge logic to copy individual changes from other branches without merging branches in the history graph. This is sometimes known as 'backporting' or 'cherry-picking'.
rebase
is documented as:
Rebase allows moving commits around in Mercurial's history (using a series of internal merges). This has many uses:
- moving changesets between branches
- "linearizing" history
- reordering changesets
- collapsing multiple changes into one changeset
Both seem to use merging to move or copy changesets between branches.
Graft copies. Rebase moves. But rebase --keep
copies.
So often it seems I can accomplish my goal of copying a changeset either way. Does it matter which one I use? When should I prefer one over the other?
E.g. should graft only be used when copying to a different named branch? Or only when there's just a single changeset?
Edit: Could it be that rebase is a potentially unsafe superset of graft, but can only be used with draft
changesets during development for editing local history, while graft is a safe subset of rebase that can be used with public
changesets during maintenance for backporting?
Rebase allows moving commits around in Mercurial's history (using a series of internal merges). This has many uses: moving changesets between branches. "linearizing" history.
hg graft has additional functionality over and above simple cherry picking of one revision. For example, you can graft a range of revisions onto another branch.
hg commit creates a snapshot of the changes to 1 or more files in the local repository. Always write a log message when committing changes. hg diff displays differences between revisions. hg revert recovers old versions of files.
Description. Update the repository's working directory to the specified changeset. If no changeset is specified, update to the tip of the current named branch and move the active bookmark (see hg help bookmarks). Update sets the working directory's parent revision to the specified changeset (see hg help parents).
hg graft
allows "cherry-picking," as you noted in your question. For example, you can run hg graft -D "2085::2093 and not 2091"
to copy only some changes from another revision. By comparison, hg rebase
(with or without --keep
) will grab whatever changeset you specify and all of its decendant changes.
Also, rebase
allows you to collapse changesets (with --collapse
). As far as I can tell, graft
does not.
One more difference I have noticed: hg graft --edit 123
lets you graft revision 123 to the working directory and edit the commit message. I can't find an hg rebase
equivalent. I should point out, though, that hg histedit
also allows for editing the commit message while rebasing.
There are probably other differences that I am not thinking of. SO community: feel free to point those out in the comments, and I will happily revise this answer to make it more complete.
See the graft
documentation and the Rebase Extension documentation for more details.
If you love us? You can donate to us via Paypal or buy me a coffee so we can maintain and grow! Thank you!
Donate Us With