Workflows, rebase, patch theory

[Ben Finney]

"Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen at xemacs.org> writes:

> Vincent Ladeuil writes:
> 
>  > One point of view is that the full history of a branch should be
>  > shared without restrictions, including errors and mess.
> 
> ... which is utterly vague once you think a bit more about it.

How so? What "utter vagueness" is there in that specification?

I interpret it as "all history information that enters the VCS should
be preserved through all future operations".

> Commit-per-keystroke, anyone? :-)

That's a social problem, to be solved with a clue-by-four to the
perpetrator :-) Not to be solved by artificially removing information
once it exists in the VCS.

>  > Another one is that the history of the project should be as clean
>  > as possible (which is utterly vague once you think a bit more
>  > about it).
>  > 
>  > I don't think these two points of view have to be exclusive.
> 
> +1

With the modification "the history of the project should be
*presented* as cleanly as the user wants", and without the implication
that the data in the branch needs post-facto altering to achieve this,
I agree.

-- 
 \      "This sentence contradicts itself -- no actually it doesn't."  |
  `\                                             -- Douglas Hofstadter |
_o__)                                                                  |
Ben Finney