On Sat, 29 Dec 2012 10:24:05 -0600 Mike Meyer <[email protected]> wrote:
> > In the first message of these, Mike Meyer, first ruled out the whole > > tool (Git) due to hating its optional feature > > If you're going quote someone out of context, at least get their > reasons right. > > You called rebase a "killer feature" of git. No, that wasn't me. > Ok, you like it. I > consider rebase a serious misfeature, as it reflects an underlying > philosophy for the tool that I flat disagree with. As far as I can > tell, rebase is *not* optional. At least, it's enabled in my install > of git, and I've never run into a way to disable it (or, for that > matter, a git tutorial that didn't gush about how cool and wonderful > the rebase command was). This should be compared to mercurial, where > rebase is available - but in an extension that's turned off by > default. *That's* an optional feature. No, an optional feature is the one you are not forced to use. I have a bunch of Git users in the company I work at who never touched `git rebase` though they supposedly read about it. They just don't need this feature and so they don't use it. If you call rebasing a non-optional feature, go ahead and claim all users of Git must commit to Subversion because Git includes the `git svn` tool and must send patches by e-mail as it also has `git format-patch`. If Git had rebasing instead of merging, you could make your point, but with the current state of affairs you can't. > You may enjoy trying to force your philosophy onto a tool Not me, again. [...] > But please don't continue wasting everyone's time by just complaining > that people disagree with you. I suggest you to calm down. I see my plead to not being zealous was in vain, so just please calm down at least. _______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
