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
> 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