On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 05:08:53PM +0200, Michal Suchanek wrote: > On 14 September 2012 16:57, Jacek Cała <jacek.c...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > My two cents: > > > > I like phrase *commit jungle* and sometimes would like to revert some > > commits or "re-commit" things a bit different. I also suppose that it > > is not that rare when people commit something by mistake or something > > which has not been tested enough. On the other hand my gut feeling is > > that (apart from what was said before) changing history is just bad > > and should be avoided. > > The commit jungle the result of exactly that - reverting some commits > or recommitting with the old commits staying around in many short > stumped branches.
I think that the git 'rebase' history rewriting could be stated different. Maybe the graph could be altered with fossil cards, the same way commit logs are changed. Then, "graph reworking" would not imply "history rewriting" (and thus history loss) as git does. Regards, Lluís. _______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
