On Mar 22, 2011, at 06:57 AM, Ben Finney wrote: >Barry Warsaw <ba...@python.org> writes: > >> There's something I don't understand about rebase. It seems like most >> git and hg users I hear from advocate rebase, while (ISTM) few Bazaar >> users do. >> >> I'd like to understand whether that's a cultural thing or whether it's >> a byproduct of some aspect of the respective tools. > >As I understand it, the justification usually given for rewriting >history is so that others get a clean view of what one has done. > >As a user of Bazaar primarily, that's addressing the problem in the >wrong place: why rewrite *my* history, which is useful to me as is, when >the other person is using Bazaar and so doesn't see revisions they don't >care about? > >The advantages given for rewriting history (“don't show individual >commits that went into a merge”) are null for a Bazaar user. Bazaar >doesn't show me those commits within merges anyway, unless I ask for >them. > >That is, when showing the log of a branch, each merge appears as a >single entry, unless I ask to expand levels when viewing them. The >detailed revision data is always there, but it doesn't get in the way >unless I ask for it. > >That seems to me the ideal: preserve all revision history for those >cases when some user will care about it, but *present* history cleanly >by default. > >Whether adding support in Mercurial or Git for similar >clean-presentation-by-default would obviate the need for rewriting >history, I can't tell.
Thanks Ben, for such a clear description. This jives with my observations exactly. Cheers, -Barry
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
