On Tue, Oct 04, 2011 at 02:34:06PM -0700, Mike Meyer wrote: > On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 1:50 PM, Erlis Vidal <er...@erlisvidal.com> wrote: > > > You shun a commit or a file in a commit? Is in fossil the shun generating a > > different commit? > > > > you can delete with git files that has history with > > > > git filter-branch --index-filter 'git rm -r --cached --ignore-unmatch > > file_name' HEAD > > > > and that will generate a new commit without the file you just deleted (yes > > I know, that git command is really cryptic that's why I'm liking fossil so > > much :) > > > > but I don't see how this will affect modified files. If the files are > > commited before, then you will never will lose those changes... unless you > > have shun those files, but I don't think that's the case, the file that was > > shun was a big image file, or I'm wrong? > > > > I don't understand, but I feel that maybe I have to learn more fossil > > before continue, because I have the feeling this was more a bug than a > > misuse of a feature. > > > > You've just hit on a philosophical difference between git and fossil. In the > fossil community - and hence in fossil itself - development history is > pretty much sacrosanct. The very name "fossil" was to chosen to reflect the > unchanging nature of things in that history. > > In git (or rather, the git community), the development history is part of > the published aspect of the project, so it provides tools for rearranging > that history so you can present what you "should" have done rather than what > you actually did.
I use to make an analogy to open-software/closed-software, talking about open-development/closed-development. git looks to me as a tool for publishing development steps, not necessarily very related to the development history. The 'git version graph' is determined by the users the same way as they choose filenames or directories, and many git groups even consider keeping the git graph close to development history as a 'basic and inexpert approach' to git. And as determined by the creator, Linus, git is more like a tool meant for sharing code preserving contributions authorship, other than storing development history. I think Linus did not want for the kernel a storage for development history; he only wanted to manage the contributions. Regards, Lluís. _______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
