Thanks, I liked the description of your workflow. You should put it on the website.
S. On Wednesday, June 23, 2010, Richard Hipp <d...@sqlite.org> wrote: > > > On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 3:42 AM, <altufa...@mail.com> wrote: > > Well, my understanding of rebase has changed since then, due to the > same problem we faced. Git 'forgets' unpublished versions when doing > rebase (but it need not - I may still be wrong here). I'm sure if > fossil implements rebase, it will not forget old versions. > > What I'm interested in is the 'feature' of rebase where it can re-apply > changes to a new a new head. The result may be in a new branch. > > > You cannot change history in Fossil, except you can correct typos in check-in > comments and move a check-in into a new branch. But even those changes are > recorded so that you can see them in a history of the repository. The > inability to rewrite history is an important and deliberate feature - not a > limitation or bug. > > If you want nice clean changes in your main tree, you can do most of your > development work in a branch (call it "experimental" for example) and then > periodically merge the experimental changes into the trunk. We do that a lot > on SQLite. We strive to make sure that every check-in on trunk compiles and > works, and so intermediate check-ins used for sharing or as works in progress > are put on branches and are not moved onto the trunk until they are ready. > That way, we can "bisect" on the trunk and all our historical trunk versions > will actually compile and work. And, we can look at the merge diff to see an > aggregate difference for some major change. > > Sometimes a check-in or two will go onto the trunk (because that is default > action) but then we will realize that those check-ins should have been on a > development branch. This is easy to fix by changing the branch of those > check-ins. > > Sometimes a check-in occurs that we decide later to abandon. This can be > done by moving that check-in into a branch that we typically call "mistake". > > > > > - Altu > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Eric <e...@deptj.eu> > To: fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org > Sent: Wed, Jun 23, 2010 12:27 pm > Subject: Re: [fossil-users] fossil rebase > > >> Hi,>> Is there a rebase feature in fossil that is similar to git > rebase? If> not, is it planned?>> - AltuAnd what is different > sincehttp://www.mail-archive.com/fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org/msg017 > 89.html?Eric_______________________________________________fossil-users > mailing > listfossil-us...@lists.fossil-scm.orghttp://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi > -bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users > > _______________________________________________ > fossil-users mailing list > fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org > http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users > > > -- > --------------------- > D. Richard Hipp > d...@sqlite.org > -- -- Stephen De Gabrielle stephen.degabrie...@acm.org Telephone +44 (0)20 85670911 Mobile +44 (0)79 85189045 http://www.degabrielle.name/stephen _______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
