On Wednesday, February 20, 2013 11:46:31 PM Barry Warsaw wrote: > >At least with git, you know when you've rewritten history -- you're no > >longer on the same commit. > > #9 on Steve Bennett's list is right on target IMHO, but I've had this > discussion so many times before, I don't have much energy for it again. > > """ > 9. Git history is a bunch of lies > The primary output of development work should be source code. Is a > well-maintained history really such an important by-product? Most of the > arguments for rebase, in particular, rely on aesthetic judgments about > “messy merges” in the history, or “unreadable logs”. So rebase encourages > you to lie in order to provide other developers with a “clean”, > “uncluttered” history. Surely the correct solution is a better log output > that can filter out these unwanted merges. > """
Agreed. I always liked this one http://netsplit.com/2009/02/17/git-sucks/ (enough to be able to find it 4 years later). Scott K -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4870622.bsvUB0WW7U@scott-latitude-e6320
