Hi Alex > Rewriting history is IMHO very very dangerous and defeats the purpose of > a RCS. That purpose is after all to track changes to your code. IMHO > this ability to change history is more about protecting an individual's > vanity than anything else.
I guess this is a emacs vs vi type of discussion.... I do find it useful to change history, but i use it sparingly. The major usage i have for it is to make sure git bisect works. I take patches from downstream and feed them upstream. I sometime see patches in a patch set where one patch breaks the build and the next fixes it. So i will change history and merge these two patches into one. What i don't want is somebody doing a git bisect to happen to land on broken state, so making their bisect harder to do. Jifl made an interesting comment. He expects contributors to submit patches, not pull requests. So an eCos maintainer has no idea if history has been changed when he receives a set of patches. The contributors are free to decide for themselves, if they wish to change the history or not. Similarly, the eCos maintainer who receives a set of patches can also change the history, squashing patches together etc. Just care has to be taken to do this in private, before the changes are pushed into a public repo where such changes could cause problems. This is very emacs vs vi like. I don't care what editor you use, since it is totally transparent to me. I don't care if you change history, i don't know if you have changed history, it is transparent to me.... Andrew -- Before posting, please read the FAQ: http://ecos.sourceware.org/fom/ecos and search the list archive: http://ecos.sourceware.org/ml/ecos-discuss