Development models, rewriting history (Re: Emacs Bazaar repository)

[Matthieu Moy]

Teemu Likonen <tlikonen at iki.fi> writes:

>> Revision 3194.1.3 fixes a typo introduced earlier in 3194.1.1.
>>
>> Had the same senario occured in the Git development, the author would
>> have rewond his private branch to 3194.1.1, "git commit --anotate"-ed
                                              (should read --amend here)
>> the patch to remove the typo, rebased the rest of the branch on top
>> of it, and re-submitted the result for a merge.
>
> If the patch series has not been applied to main upstream branches

Which is the case in the senario I'm showing. The developer fixed
something with a new commit _before_ having it merged into mainline.

> If bug/typo is already in the upstream then only new commits are made to 
> fix them. A developer fixing a bug will prepare a new commit on top of 
> current tree. There's no messing with the past anymore. And new merge 
> to the upstream will show this fix commit.

Yes, in this case, you don't really have the choice, whether you use
bzr or git (or you totally break merging for anyone having cloned your
repository already). But that's not what I'm talking about (grep "same
topic branch" in my message).

-- 
Matthieu