On Sun, 4 Apr 2010, D. Richard Hipp wrote:
I argue that abandoned branches are part of the historical record and
ought to be preserved. Fossil does distinguish between "Open" and
"Closed" branches. The user interface currently displays all branches
on the same page, but if it got to be a problem, the UI could be
enhanced to show only the Open branches.
I personally prefer to remove my false starts and mistakes, and commit an
idealized version of my code development history for other people to
review. It's hard enough to perform meaningful code reviews without having
to parse people's late-night mistakes. I tend to agree with the Parnas &
Clements paper that it's often better to "fake it" [*]. Novelists don't
publish their intermediate versions either, BTW, they've been 'faking it'
since the invention of creative writing.
http://www.fossil-scm.org/fossil/doc/trunk/www/shunning.wiki
It's questionable whether you still have a usable repository after you
attempt to remove a random artifact that's been involved in merges etc.
This is not a criticism of Fossil, by the way, it's always a problem, but
it's a little easier to solve on a centralized system.
Happy Easter,
Gé
[*] "A Rational Design Process, How and Why to Fake It"
D. Parnas & P. Clements
http://www.cs.tufts.edu/~nr/cs257/archive/david-parnas/fake-it.pdf_______________________________________________
fossil-users mailing list
fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org
http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
