Neil Schemenauer <n...@python.ca> writes: > Regarding collapsing multiple comments (and rewriting history in > general), I feel there are two main schools of thought. One school > considers the development history of a change important and that it > should be preserved: every step and misstep of development should end > up in the public repository.
Yep, that's the school I'm in. Other people don't get to say what I would find useful, and the cost of having data there is very low compared to the inability to re-create it at the times when it's needed. > The other school, which I am a member of, considers a logical > development sequence more important than actual development history. That seems to be an artefact of VCS tools which force you to choose between those two. The reason I prefer Bazaar is that it gives me both without compromising either. > I like to see a feature or fix developed in smallish, logical steps > and I'm willing to spend a lot of time to rewrite patches to make it > happen. IMO, future maintainers will thank you for the effort. Right, and those logical steps are done as merges from the feature branch into the trunk (substitute those names as you like). I consider the merging from one branch to another as the time to decide how to present my VCS work for others to view. I haven't heard a useful case for rebase that I don't get with Bazaar's merging, default history presentation, and shelve capability. And all of that without ever having to re-write history – nor even choose what valuable information to lose. -- \ “The way to build large Python applications is to componentize | `\ and loosely-couple the hell out of everything.” —Aahz | _o__) | Ben Finney _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
