Fixing rebase rather than avoiding it

[Matthew D. Fuller]

On Thu, Mar 04, 2010 at 04:22:52PM +0900 I heard the voice of
Stephen J. Turnbull, and lo! it spake thus:
> Matthew D. Fuller writes:
> 
>  > > Revision 2 is identical to revision 1.1.1
>  > 
>  > Then why would you have to rebase it, instead of just sticking it
>  > on the head of the branch as-is?
> 
> You don't *have* to rebase it.  In certain workflows, it is a
> sensible choice.

I don't see how.  It's barely even _meaningful_.  You're creating a
new rev with the same contents, committer, timestamp, log, and parents
as an existing rev.  It's nearly exactly the same; in bzr, I expect
the revid to be the only difference.  If you did it in git, I'd think
even the id would be the same, since all the info it's based on is the
same.

The only time you'd need to rebase to pop it on the end of the branch
is when some part of that (at least the parent[s] list) has to change.
But that's the separate situation wandering through the rest of the
mail.


-- 
Matthew Fuller     (MF4839)   |  fullermd at over-yonder.net
Systems/Network Administrator |  http://www.over-yonder.net/~fullermd/
           On the Internet, nobody can hear you scream.