On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 05:37:35PM -0600, Nico Williams wrote: > On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 5:01 PM, Lluís Batlle i Rossell > <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 04:40:28PM -0600, Nico Williams wrote: > >> And so on. Really. Large projects need order, they need process. > >> They need clean trees in official repos. > >> > >> Without a way to clean history prior to pushing to / pulling into > >> official repos a VCS is just hard to use effectively. > > > > I'm not against that; I understand that teams of projects want to organize > > what > > their "VCS history" looks like. > > > > What I meant is that (by now) git has only one way of providing such "clean > > trees": > > destroying the history. > > That's a strawman. I very specifically suggested that a fossil rebase > operation should *always* copy the branch being rebased and then > rebase that copy. > > Now what on Earth could possibly be objectionable about that?
Ah sorry, I was only talking about my objections against "git rebase". I don't know the best way to implement a feature that allows creating 'new history' at will (not destroying the old). All I can imagine sounds like a lot of work. :) Regards, Lluís. _______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
