On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 9:55 AM, Konstantin Khomoutov <flatw...@users.sourceforge.net> wrote: > In the first message of these, Mike Meyer, first ruled out the whole > tool (Git) due to hating its optional feature
If you're going quote someone out of context, at least get their reasons right. You called rebase a "killer feature" of git. Ok, you like it. I consider rebase a serious misfeature, as it reflects an underlying philosophy for the tool that I flat disagree with. As far as I can tell, rebase is *not* optional. At least, it's enabled in my install of git, and I've never run into a way to disable it (or, for that matter, a git tutorial that didn't gush about how cool and wonderful the rebase command was). This should be compared to mercurial, where rebase is available - but in an extension that's turned off by default. *That's* an optional feature. You may enjoy trying to force your philosophy onto a tool that was designed with a completely different philosophy in mind, but I've got better things to do. There are DSCMs designed with a philosophy that I agree with. I'll use those, and not annoy the git folks by trying to get them to remove history-altering commands. > and then proceeded with a > fancastic technical argument against it: "None. Zero. Nada. Never.". That wasn't a technical argument, that was an answer to a question you asked. Ok, maybe your question was rhetorical because you assumed everyone would have the same answer you do, but my answer is still "None. I have never been asked to edit commits on a submitted patch." In any way. I don't think I've ever worked on a project were asking someone to edit commits would be considered acceptable behavior. You totally ignored my question to you, which asked for more details about your proposal. While rebase pretty much isn't going to happen (as I explained, it's contrary to the philosophy of fossil), you suggested a feature that sounded like it wouldn't clash with that philosophy. However, your description was rather vague. If you can get off your high horse long enough to describe what you'd like done in terms of commits and how they show up on the new branch, as opposed to "rebase", it might get some consideration. But please don't continue wasting everyone's time by just complaining that people disagree with you. _______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
