Question about features

[Daniel Carrera]

Ben Finney wrote:
> Tom Widmer <tom.widmer at googlemail.com> writes:
> 
>> Bazaar is quite bad at history editing of this kind I think. It's very
>> hard to uncommit changes that have already been incorporated into
>> other branches/looms/pipelines.
> 
> I would rephrase that as: Bazaar is very good at ensuring the branch is
> always in a fit state for sharing with anyone, if you choose to do so.
> It doesn't force me to decide when I need to avoid certain operations
> that don't play well with other branches.

This is only your perspective. I see it the way Tom phrased it.


>> Note that both of these will tend to keep the history of all your
>> experiments, which you seemed to want to avoid.
> 
> I'll point to a 2008 article I recently found examining this:
> 
>     Despite the disadvantages, I regularly hear people, mainly git
>     users, say how great rebase is. When I ask why the answer is always
>     something like “to clean up my commits”. So I'll ask what they want
>     to clean up, and why. Eventually I realize that they don't actually
>     want to lose their history, what they really want control over how
>     their code is displayed and delivered.

I don't fall in this category. I *don't* want my history full of 
hundreds of patches called "test" which do nothing more than add or 
remove "printf". Most of my work is experimentation to see how to make a 
feature work the way I want.

In principle, what I really need is a way to send stuff to the test 
server without having to commit, but without losing the branching and 
merging feature that a VCS provides. I know of nothing that provides 
precisely that, but I recently posted on way I can use rsync to get 
something that's good enough.

Daniel.