On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 11:00 AM, Jacek Cała <jacek.c...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2012/9/14 Bill Burdick <bill.burd...@gmail.com>: > > > > Sure, you could have named, alternate timelines and just choose which > one to > > make the default, each timeline forming a namespace for its branches and > > tags and timelines could inherit from other timelines. That way you > could > > have rabasing without losing history. > > > > Hmmm... being pragmatic, who would like to have many timelines in the > same project? IMHO that would make things quite complicated or at > least unclear. Whereas the 'private' commit tags (which I mentioned > above) would make things easier I believe; easier to implement and > easier to use. > Private commit tags sound a little less versatile than Git rebasing. Multiple timelines is only one possibility, though. You could do with just 2, the "actual" and the "public." The "public" could be a mutable view on the "actual," which is immutable. That brings up the question of why there couldn't be more than just 2, of course :). Who would want to have that? I think the Git community answers that. Anyone who wants to have a cleaner presentation of history than what actually happened. Being able to have a clean view without losing the actual history sounds like a good trick, to me, and it would answer the rebasing functionality gap that concerns some people. Bill
_______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users