So, I think my description above shows why it's more versatile. Rebasing is a tool that reorders, combines, and splits commits. A private tag might be the end result of the editing. Rebasing could be done in fossil, there just isn't a tool to do it (and Git's rebase tools are pretty involved). You could produce a new branch/tag from it, instead of changing one and that would be one way to rebase while preserving history.
Alternate timelines could also be a way to group tags/branches and bury the ones that ended up not being important. Bill On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 11:11 AM, Jacek Cała <jacek.c...@gmail.com> wrote: > 2012/9/14 Bill Burdick <bill.burd...@gmail.com>: > > > > Private commit tags sound a little less versatile than Git rebasing. > > > As said above, I don't really know how git rebasing works. Could you > shed more light on why it is more versatile than the simple private > tags? > > Cheers, > Jacek > _______________________________________________ > fossil-users mailing list > fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org > http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users >
_______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
