Nico Williams <n...@cryptonector.com> wrote:
>On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 10:57 PM, Mike Meyer <m...@mired.org> wrote: >>>> So, for the third time, can you describe your proposed new feature >>>*without* saying the words "git" or "rebase". >>>No: it's too much work, and many people understand "git rebase", and >> -1. >So is that a -1 to the attitude, the proposal, or both? The proposal. It smells. Without a better description of the problem than "I need rebase", its impossible to do the evalutation of alternative solutions that good engineering practices call for to decide if the smell is an indication of a real problem or not. Minimally, knowing how you solve this problem using existing fossil commands would help decide if "to much work" is a valid evaluation, a straw man, an overlooked fossil feature, or a need for a minor workflow tweak. But technical descriptions of why things like perforce's three-step merge or mercurial queues or any other alternatives mentioned here aren't acceptable are pretty much required. Given a proper problem description, I'd be glad to do that for the ones I'm familiar with. I'd also be happy if you want to provide those, but expect that it's also "to much work". -- Sent from my Android tablet with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my swyping. _______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
