On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 11:04 AM, Warren Young <w...@etr-usa.com> wrote:
> Could someone who understands “git rebase” weigh in on that thread? > People are claiming that “fossil shun” means there is no difference between > Git and Fossil. > > Either my understanding of fossil shun is just as weak as my understanding > of git rebase, or this is a false equivalency, > Fossil shun only excludes selected artifacts while git rebase actualy rewrites history. Shun requires you find the IDs of the artifacts you want/need to exclude. Rebase does the dirty work for you. In the simple cases I've had to deal with git, the core maintainers of the projects involved required that submissions be "fast-forward merge" ready. That is, the affected files are up to date with respect to the trunk (aka "master") tip. Since the project maintainers were completely uninterested in my local revision history, for me, this amounted to updating my local git, merging trunk tip to my branch, build/test/fix/...., then finally, merging my branch tip to trunk, pushing to my github fork and sending a pull request to the maintainers. If their "fast-forward merge" failed, I would have to repeat the above process and resubmit my pull request. If you have changes on a branch you actually care about the change history, git rebase can be used to, effectively, transplant your branch from whichever truck commit it started from to the trunk tip. This is sort of like merging the trunk tip into your branch;s first commit, then into each subsequent branch commit. The end result is theoretically the equivalent of having started your branch at the latest trunk tip instead of where ever you really started it.
_______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
