> On Sep 14, 2017, at 11:12 PM, Johan Kuuse <[email protected]> wrote: > > I would like to have a stronger argument against rebasing, preferrably with > an example.
It’s been hashed over here on the mailing list many times before. Just search the archives for “git rebase”. The short argument I prefer to use is that a version control system should behave like an accounting system, recording what happened, as it happened. Git rebase is like keeping your company’s ledger on a whiteboard. In an accounting system, if you make a mistake, you don’t erase the line and write in the correction. You make *another* entry correcting the error, just like you do when you check in an error using Fossil. > A commit pre-hook running an automatic indenting would have solved this > problem. While I have strong ideas of how source code should be formatted and I can *mostly* write BSD or GNU indent(1) rules to codify that standard, I can’t quite get either of them to result in exactly my preferred coding style. The tools always wreck something, requiring that I go back in and fix it up manually. Coding style is a social norm. It should be enforced by social means, not technical means. _______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
