> Joshua Paine wrote: >> >> I prefer the way fossil currently works: it hasn't caused me to make a >> mistake yet, whereas in SVN more than once I've accidentally checked-in >> only part of my work b/c I happened to be too deep in the folder >> hierarchy when I typed commit. >> > > Sometimes the 'feature' of SVN (and CVS) to only commit the subtree > comes in handy, and sometimes you shoot yourself in the foot with it. > Any SCM somehow provides enough rope to hang yourself. Git is arguably > the most 'powerful' of the current crop of DVCS tools, but it includes a > lot of extra rope to achieve that, you can remove old branches and > rewrite unpublished history without a problem, which is nice when you're > exploring new ideas, but it's bad if you make mistakes. > > Fossil is at the other end of the spectrum, less rope, and a lot less of > an opportunity to rewrite history. It's probably a lot safer in > untrained hands. > > Gé
And that is the way SCM should be - _no_ opportunity to rewrite history. Eric _______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
