Fixing rebase rather than avoiding it
Stephen J. Turnbull
stephen at xemacs.org
Thu Mar 4 13:41:20 GMT 2010
Matthew D. Fuller writes:
> AFAIK, _NO_ current system lets you edit the DAG.
OK, so "edit the DAG" is a metaphor for something else.
> The schism isn't between people wanting the ability to create and
> switch to a parallel history, and those wanting the ability denied;
> it's between people who advocate it as a standard component of an
> everyday workflow, and those who reserve it for extraordinary
> situations. It's not really possible to deny that it has costs (it
> discards information) and benefits (it creates specific
> configurations); but the two parties evaluate the absolute and
> relative weights of both VERY differently.
I don't think that is all there is to it. I described in another post
a system where my editor implicitly adds commits to the known DAG
every 300 keystrokes or so. I suspect that that is a use of a VCS
that Ben for one is not considering in his discussion. Of course this
is an extreme and not entirely plausible case, but I think it
indicates that it's not just a question of weighting the costs and
benefits differently. Rather, the different parties have rather
different models and use cases for VCS.
More information about the bazaar
mailing list