Is "bzr push" safe?

[INADA Naoki]

> Only git really allows me to be me, and "just commit" "early and> often" (like Richard Daley's advice about voting!), and fix up the> conceptual dependencies (DAG parentage) later.  mq, pipelines, looms> all provide similar functionality, but they require me to *think*> about what I'm doing with the VCS while developing, rather than simply> following the "early and often" rule, and worrying about presentation> to 3rd parties later.
bzr allows me to "just commit" "early and often" and *doesn't* fixup later.
My dirty and often commits are in subline, so mainline is always simple.

So, it's a matter of personal taste.

On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 10:29 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull <stephen at xemacs.org> wrote:
> Barry Warsaw writes:
>
>  > I suspect that it's more that most projects have a strong sense of
>  > their main line of development, i.e. the "blessed" trunk.
>
> Which really is another way of saying what I did, because VCSes aren't
> used by *projects*, they're used by *developers*.  So developers have
> a strong incentive to concentrate on producing patches for the
> "blessed" trunk, and avoid "wasting" time on anything that doesn't
> advance their current patch.
>
> I can't do that.  I've never seen a codebase that wasn't riddled with
> defects that don't manifest as runtime errors (missing or
> unintelligible or style-guide-violating docstrings, obsolete comments,
> etc).  So my private work has no blessed mainline, it doesn't go
> straight forward.
>
> Only git really allows me to be me, and "just commit" "early and
> often" (like Richard Daley's advice about voting!), and fix up the
> conceptual dependencies (DAG parentage) later.  mq, pipelines, looms
> all provide similar functionality, but they require me to *think*
> about what I'm doing with the VCS while developing, rather than simply
> following the "early and often" rule, and worrying about presentation
> to 3rd parties later.
>
> You might think I'd prefer Darcs, which manages this stuff more or
> less automatically.  There are two problems: "more or less" in
> practice is "less" when it matters, and private history does matter to
> me, though not as much as public history (which IMHO *should* be
> inviolable *and indelible*, damn the RIAA and BSA anyway!)
>



-- 
INADA Naoki  <songofacandy at gmail.com>