On 30 December 2012 12:56, Nico Williams <n...@cryptonector.com> wrote:
> 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 don't know. You won't explain it. "It's too much work," remember? > I shall wait for D. Richard Hipp's word as to any kind of rebase never > making it into Fossil. > http://www.mail-archive.com/fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org/msg01792.html That alone would be a pretty strong indicator given the context of the thread it's in. Too, the fact that *two years after* the first round of requests for "rebase" there is still no rebase functionality and this conversation is coming up *yet again* is another pretty strong indicator. > > TL;DR version: stop whining and use Git if you want Git. > > You fail reading comprehension. > No, you just don't like my interpretation. > 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). > Good. So you're happy with Git. Keep using Git. You like its features and you don't like the fact Fossil doesn't have these features (and that it likely never will). There's no reason to make every DSCM turn into a Git clone. (Indeed there's every reason *not* to have a myriad of Git clones out and about!) > I happen to think that Fossil has a superior architecture and design. > Except part of its design is *no rewriting of history*. Hence, no "rebase" in the Git sense. > I'd like to use Fossil, but I can't, and I've explained why. So use Git. Nobody here is calling you a bad person because you're using Git. Nobody here is holding a gun to your head forcing you to use not-Git. > I've also explained why I'm unlikely to be the only user who needs this > one feature. > This is the C++ approach to things: add every conceivable feature because "someone, somewhere" might want to use it. The result is a language that should be an embarrassment with so much of a learning curve^H^H^H^H^H*cliff*that very few people (if any) could really be called "expert users". (The funniest part was that the standards committee decided to address this specific problem by *adding even more features*.) There's use cases for every bizarre feature in every bizarre SCM (distributed or otherwise) out there. Let's not turn Fossil into the C++ of DSCMs, shall we? If you *really, positively, absolutely* must have rebase, Git is that-a-way. Insisting that Fossil should turn into Git is not a viable argument. -- "Perhaps people don't believe this, but throughout all of the discussions of entering China our focus has really been what's best for the Chinese people. It's not been about our revenue or profit or whatnot." --Sergey Brin, demonstrating the emptiness of the "don't be evil" mantra.
_______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
