Will re-basing support be added into Bazaar core ?

[Ben Finney]

Russel Winder <russel.winder at concertant.com> writes:

> I agree that commit comments can be overtaken by events and become
> entirely useless, but this is going to happen anyway as the code
> evolves -- especially when code gets deleted completely.

The important difference is that, with rebase, the comments are on
revisions that are *different from* the revision for which the comment
was written.

In the case of code evolving, there are *new* revisions being committed
with their own comments. The existing revisions continue to match their
comments. Any one of them can be used to re-create the working tree for
that revision, and the comment still applies to that working tree
exactly as well as it did when that revision was first made.

> I understand those who want to ensure the history is valid as a
> record, for them rebase really is anathema. I am more concerned with
> merging changes back to mainline with a trivial comprehension on what
> changes are lined up.

This speaks to the need for a *different view* of existing revisions,
not to re-writing the history of revisions.

> I think uncommit/recommit is a very different beast and I don't think
> it should be tainted with the same brush rebase is painted with.

Agreed.

-- 
 \          “Jury: A group of 12 people, who, having lied to the judge |
  `\       about their health, hearing, and business engagements, have |
_o__)                           failed to fool him.” —Henry L. Mencken |
Ben Finney
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 196 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/bazaar/attachments/20090420/a1dfd7d5/attachment.pgp