On 12/31/12 19:52, Doug Currie wrote: > On Dec 31, 2012, at 1:29 PM, Nico Williams <n...@cryptonector.com> wrote: >> I haven't yet re-unsubscribed. Joerg's note added hope > Thank you for explaining rebase. It's not something I've ever needed to do, > so I was skeptical of its value, and even more skeptical that it would ever > be adopted by Fossil. While you have not converted me to an advocate, I've > learned why you find it useful, and how it may be achieved without destroying > history. I thank you for that, and for trying to be constructive and civil on > this mailing list.
I wholeheartedly agree (with the entire paragraph). I have never used rebase, nor do I see any use for it in my daily work-flow. That being said, I've thought that about many things in the past until it was suddenly available to me. (And history is full of such examples for others as well. (3D acceleration? Linux users used to be quick to point out that only 1ame g4m3rz and n00bs need it [because it wasn't available on Linux]. Nowadays some Linux desktops even require 3D acceleration to run normally)). But more importantly, I don't see my current own personal lack of interest for rebase as a barrier to having the feature in fossil. As long as it doesn't break the DAG I'm fine (and Nico was clear about that being the intention). Things makes fossil more appealing and could help transition users to it from other systems is good in my book. Nico and Joerg have made it clear to me, as a "rebase n00b", that there's a very fossil way to have rebase. And if I read Michal Suchanek correctly, we could even do it better than the arch-typical example of rebase (git). ..and I hope Nico's constructive and civil tone will be an inspiration to the community going forward. -- Kind regards, Jan Danielsson _______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
