On Mon, 28 Jul 2025 at 03:28, Tomasz Rola <rto...@ceti.pl> wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 25, 2025 at 10:54:49AM -0500, Constantine A. Murenin wrote: > [...] > > CVS does NOT allow novice users to edit commits. This is a huge > > deal-breaker for any use these days, just see how the "normal" people > > never understood the idea behind not being able to fix typos in their > > tweets. > [...] > > I have no idea why would I want to edit commits, or repositories, by > hand (assuming I read you correctly). Is it not easier to edit files > and just commit them and in such way change the repo into what I would > like it to be?
You're basically missing out on the whole idea of "commit early, commit often" paradigm. Git allows you to do that without the whole world having to see the intermediate mess. The workflow is, commit lots of stuff, do `git rebase --interactive`, then change "pick" to "squash" or "edit" on the interactive rebase, and `git commit --amend` as appropriate, `git rebase --continue`. Would you accept a text editor that couldn't edit existing files? Where each file had to be a new one, with only a one-time "save" option? And where filenames couldn't be overwritten, either? If you do, cvs is absolutely great, although fossil-scm would probably be better anyways. If you can't imagine any reason to use such a pointless restriction, then Git is far superior to CVS. Even if you're working on your own, there's no reason why obvious typos or mishaps should remain in the repo forever. I mean, maybe you commit the cloud access key by mistake? What do you do if you normally publish your repo publicly or semi-publicly? Or was planning to in the future? How do you remove the access key without editing the repo by hand? In Git, you simply `git rebase --interactive` before a push, and that's it. C.
