Bill Burdick wrote: [...] > Who would want to have that? I think the Git community answers that. > Anyone who wants to have a cleaner presentation of history than what > actually happened. Being able to have a clean view without losing the > actual history sounds like a good trick, to me, and it would answer the > rebasing functionality gap that concerns some people.
Would not the Fossil way to do this be to have two branches, one public and one development, and have periodic merges across from the development branch to the public branch? The public branch would have the 'clean' history, with single checkins containing lots of files representing complete features, but if anyone wants to see the details they can follow the merge into the development branch and see how the work was actually done. -- ┌─── ｄｇ＠ｃｏｗｌａｒｋ．ｃｏｍ ───── http://www.cowlark.com ───── │ "Parents let children ride bicycles on the street. But parents do not │ allow children to hear vulgar words. Therefore we can deduce that │ cursing is more dangerous than being hit by a car." --- Scott Adams _______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
