On 6 October 2011 02:48, Gé Weijers <g...@weijers.org> wrote: > > > On Wed, 5 Oct 2011, Michal Suchanek wrote: > >> And when you find an issue with a commit that is some way back in your >> personal branch it is more logical and easier to review your branch if >> you append the fix to the commit where it belongs logically or if you >> append it at the top of the history interspersed with some possibly >> unrelated changes? > > One of the downsides of rebasing is that the following workflow does present > problems: > > - develop & commit > - sync with upstream, rebase/commit > - test > - sync with upstream, rebase/commit and push > > The version you tested now no longer exists in the repository. This may not > be a big issue in some environments, but it may be a showstopper elsewhere > (where I work it is). > > If you have to use a Git repository in such an environment you end up using > hooks to log all updates, and block all forced updates (updates that edit > history). Otherwise one clueless developer can do serious damage.
Most sane git workflows require that sync with upstream does not require forced updates. Some project have experimental branch that may but all else should update cleanly. You can always make a copy of your branch before you rebase so that you do have a copy. Thanks Michal _______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
