Workflows, rebase, patch theory

[Ben Finney]

Matthieu Moy <Matthieu.Moy at imag.fr> writes:

> Ben Finney <bignose+hates-spam at benfinney.id.au> writes:
> 
> > I don't see how "information about what happened when" is "noise",
> > especially in a system that's designed to preserve exactly that
> > information — which is what a VCS is designed to do.
> 
> If you have to review a patch serie, you don't care about the
> mistakes fixed later in the serie, you don't care about when the
> author of the patch merged from upstream, ...

This is an argument for allowing the user to filter what they see,
*not* for throwing away information from a branch history.

> There is a _huge_ difference between the published history, shared
> by everybody, and your own private space. The history you publish is
> a description of the logic between the starting point, and the end
> point. Your private history can contain your mistakes and mess, but
> you're the only one who may need it.

I think that's been demonstrated untrue elsewhere in this thread. If
you're not convinced, I won't try again in this message.

-- 
 \        "Computers are useless. They can only give you answers."  -- |
  `\                                                     Pablo Picasso |
_o__)                                                                  |
Ben Finney