> Well, yes, that is the way I do it too. I suspect that there are some > who do not review their changes before commit, and that many of those > commit way too often, essentially treating their VCS as a backup method. > This of course leads to junk, non-functional checkins, followed by an > unhealthy interest in rebase-like functionality.
> Well put. With all sincerity I fail to see why this is well put. That paragraph is basically criticizing the rest of the people that is not using an VCS in the same way that the poster likes to use. Why is it not correct to commit often? Why is it an advantage to always make a deep review of what is going to be commited? Why the timeline needs to be pretty and delicately handmade? In my opinion a VCS can be used in many different ways depending on the type of application, size of the dev team, company policies, etc. Trying to enforce one of these ways of working is just plain reductionism. At the end we are discussing something very simple: Which default usage is more convenient for most users? Once one default is selected, are we causing a great pain to the non favoured users? _______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
