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

Reply via email to