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 

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

Reply via email to