Will re-basing support be added into Bazaar core ?

[Ben Finney]

Robert Collins <robert.collins at canonical.com> writes:

> There is a very obvious disconnect here. You interpret 'destroy' or
> 'alter' history as 'mutate or delete commit objects'.

Right. “history” includes not just the commit objects (what I've been
referring to as “revisions”) but also, importantly, the relationships
between them as represented by the branch; their ancestry.

By saying “rebase loses history” I understand that to mean “rebase
loses information encoded in the history of revisions and their
ancestry”. As I've understood this discussion, that's simple fact:
rebase loses information in history by losing the ancestry of revisions
in a branch.

> I believe that nearly all the users *in the world* when discussing
> this topic would understand 'rebase destroys or alters history' to
> refer to removing the prior branch ref and replacing it with another
> that does not refer to the original ref.

I don't have these “ref” concepts. Is it correct for me to think of
“ref” as “revision”, and “reflog”as “revision ancestry”?

-- 
 \        “I used to work in a fire hydrant factory. You couldn't park |
  `\                          anywhere near the place.” —Steven Wright |
_o__)                                                                  |
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/20090422/84bdf1b6/attachment.pgp