On Sat, 29 Dec 2012 16:20:32 +0100 Lluís Batlle i Rossell <[email protected]> wrote:
Top post due to... okay. The last three messages to this thread look somewhat alarming. In the first message of these, Mike Meyer, first ruled out the whole tool (Git) due to hating its optional feature and then proceeded with a fancastic technical argument against it: "None. Zero. Nada. Never.". The second one, from Eric, contained the exclamation "Rebase is a lie!" repeated three times in a row. And now I'm reading about Git users ashamed for the histories they create. <sarcasm>You guys do really sound as a religious sect.</sarcasm> Of course, this is a pro-Fossil list, but I fail to understand why such bashing of a rival DVCS and preaching are really required: those who might be "converted" are unlikely to read this list anyway (they're supposedly busy reading "Pro Git" now), and those who are reading this list admittedly prefer dry technical arguments. Actually, I intended to write a calm and purely technical response to Mike's message pointing out the ideas Git devs had while implementing rebasing (I failed to see in this thread any notice of using rebasing to help future bisecting, for instance), but the next two messages urged me to write this rather off-topic semi-rant. TL;DR I would really like to have such discussions be more technical and less zealous, if possible, please. > (top post, due to the complexity of the previous post) [...] _______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
