On Mon February 25 2008 9:31:15 am Otavio Salvador wrote: > Right. Well said. > > This however doesn't changes the value of logical changes. I doubt > git.git people would accept patches like: > > "Now it compiles again" > "Ouch! Syntax error" > "First try to get it done" > ... > > It's much nicer to have something like: > > "Implements the basis for feature 'foo'" > "Changes code to use new feature 'foo'" > > and avoid all the messy commits done in the way.
Why? I would rather have the original history. After all, isn't that what version control is for? Preserving history? Because perhaps in my attempt to fix a syntax error I inadvertantly messed up some logic that I don't notice until a year later. Perhaps if I then look at $DVCS blame I can see that "Ouch! Syntax error" changed that logic, and if I then look at the patch, it may be quite easy to see what the syntax error was and how I fixed it incorrectly. One could easily do this hacking on a separate branch, then merge --no-ff into the main branch, and submit that. You'd have one logical top-level commit plus the whole history leading to it if you care. Also, I don't get why git people are so uptight about this. "Dirty history" is not only tolerated, but the *only* sane option with, lesse... rcs cvs svn darcs tla baz (bzr?) Only the git and hg people seem to care (and the git people a lot more than hg people). -- John -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
