On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 8:17 PM, Andy Goth <andrew.m.g...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I also told him about the Git issues I've read about, particularly how > fast and loose it plays with preserving history, how branches aren't > much more than tags identifying the final product of a development > effort. I said I can see how this benefits the Linux kernel requirement > that the maintainers not be overburdened by the blow-by-blow history, > how they're ultimately only going to want the final product. But I said > that disregard for preserving detailed history, including (perhaps > especially) mistakes, is anathema to me, how important it is that I be > able to research the detailed development history when I'm tracking down > when and how things went wrong. > A new project at work is using Bitbucket[1] and a workflow which deletes feature branches when they're merged. The web UI offers a "delete branch" feature and i'm always _so tempted_ to click it (and click "yes" on the subsequent confirmation dialog), _simply to prove a point_. It'd mean the end of my career, but the point would have been made. (That point being that the ability to delete history, in particular for anyone with commit access to be able to do so, is fundamentally braindead. "What could possibly go wrong?") [1] it's quite a nice tool, actually, from what little i've used it. -- ----- stephan beal http://wanderinghorse.net/home/stephan/ http://gplus.to/sgbeal "Freedom is sloppy. But since tyranny's the only guaranteed byproduct of those who insist on a perfect world, freedom will have to do." -- Bigby Wolf
_______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
