On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 10:49 PM, Michael Richter <ttmrich...@gmail.com> wrote: > I'm pretty sure that "rebase" or its equivalents will never be a part of > Fossil. Given that there are tools out there (like Git) that feature this > functionality that some (and I stress it's only some) users want, perhaps > this following question is to practical but … why not use Git, the tool that > has the feature you want? This arguing over whether rebase is good or bad > and whether you're a good or bad person for wanting it is futile. I'm > pretty damned sure that it's not going to ever be added (given Richard > Hipp's philosophical stance on rewriting repository history).
What is it about rebase that causes so many to miss the idea of a rebase that is NOT destructive because it creates a new branch instead of doing a destructive change to an existing branch? I shall wait for D. Richard Hipp's word as to any kind of rebase never making it into Fossil. > TL;DR version: stop whining and use Git if you want Git. You fail reading comprehension. I do use git, nearly exclusively. And I use rebase. And I use it in a way that is non-destructive (because I always rebase fresh branches that are copies of the ones I want to rebase). I happen to think that Fossil has a superior architecture and design. I'd like to use Fossil, but I can't, and I've explained why. I've also explained why I'm unlikely to be the only user who needs this one feature. Nico -- _______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
