Fixing rebase rather than avoiding it

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Óscar Fuentes <ofv at wanadoo.es>
> Date: Thu, 04 Mar 2010 14:33:12 +0100
> 
> Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu.org> writes:
> 
> > IMO, advising those who didn't to switch to ``saner practices'' is a
> > better path than telling them to use "bzr rebase".  The result will be
> > the same, but with much less potential for confusion and errors.
> 
> rebase is safer than working on a bound branch

``Safer'' in what way?

> From the Emacs devs perspective, the problem with rebase is that it is
> yet another new concept and some people had enough of those.

Exactly.

> If I were off-line and in the mood of doing a few quick fixes I'll pile
> them on a single branch and later send them upstream with rebase &&
> push. This would save lots of time.

There are alternatives to this workflow that don't involve rebase, of
course.  E.g., "bzr ci --local", or "bzr switch", or ...

But I'm not saying rebase does not have its place, mind you.  If it
works for you, that's cool.

> Another good use of rebase is for those who do quickfixes the
> "distributed way". They are contributing histories like this:
> 
> 5 Fixed bug #432
>   2.1.4 Merge from trunk
>   2.1.3 Fixed bug #432
>   2.1.2 Merge from trunk
>   2.1.1 Merge from trunk
> 4 ...

Right.  And FWIW, I never understood why this bothers people so much
to warrant long repeated discussions such as this one.