Fixing rebase rather than avoiding it

[Ben Finney]

Russel Winder <russel.winder at concertant.com> writes:

> So in the end I think we are all agreeing: for those that want to use
> it with their private branches, rebase is a nice tool. Those who don't
> like it, don't use it. Rebasing of public branches is sufficiently
> problematic to be a bad idea.

The one point that keeps being omitted from such each-to-their-own
summaries:

Rebasing is problematic (in the senses discussed in this thread)
precisely to the extent that revision data stops being private and
becomes published to more than one person.

It's not a problem, in other words, until it is a problem. The data
remains private, until despite confident predictions it becomes public.
And by that point it's too late to *not* rebase; it's better if the
rebase were not done in the first place and a consistency-preserving
method were always used.

-- 
 \              “In the long run, the utility of all non-Free software |
  `\      approaches zero. All non-Free software is a dead end.” —Mark |
_o__)                                                    Pilgrim, 2006 |
Ben Finney
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/bazaar/attachments/20100305/19c0d221/attachment.pgp