On Oct 12, 2016, at 6:12 PM, Andy Bradford <amb-fos...@bradfords.org> wrote: > > Thus said Andy Goth on Wed, 12 Oct 2016 16:25:43 -0500: > >> Comments? Questions? This method does everything my team needs. >> Perhaps Fossil might consider adopting it, or a streamlined variant, >> so we'll have an answer to the perennial question about how to do >> rebase. > > I honestly have not yet found the need for ``rebase'' so I'm not really > sure what I get out of using it. Maybe you can put up a demo Fossil > repository that shows just what your rebase looks like, and then what it > would look like without rebase?
That, or just a command sequence whereby one could construct such a repository locally. I *think* I see what you’re trying to accomplish here, Mr. Goth, but I’m not quite sure it’s the same thing as Git rebase. For one thing, doesn’t it leave a branch and all of its checkin history behind? I thought its most famous use was to collapse a branch’s entire change sequence down to a single patch. Incidentally, as one who ran an active open source project, I always hated receiving big-ball-of-hackage patches that changed several essentially unrelated things. I really don’t understand the charm in receiving a single flattened patch. Fossil bundles are a much better idea. I *want* to see the full checkin history. _______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users