On Thursday, February 21, 2013 02:02:09 PM Chow Loong Jin wrote: > On 21/02/2013 12:46, Barry Warsaw wrote: > > #9 on Steve Bennett's list is right on target IMHO, but I've had this > > discussion so many times before, I don't have much energy for it again. > > > > """ > > 9. Git history is a bunch of lies > > The primary output of development work should be source code. Is a > > well-maintained history really such an important by-product? Most of the > > arguments for rebase, in particular, rely on aesthetic judgments about > > “messy merges” in the history, or “unreadable logs”. So rebase encourages > > you to lie in order to provide other developers with a “clean”, > > “uncluttered” history. Surely the correct solution is a better log output > > that can filter out these unwanted merges. > > """ > > Well, rebasing aside, my main reason for rewriting history is to ensure that > each commit is properly separated so that if I ever need something specific > reverted, I can just git revert and take out that particular change instead > of having to pick aside the appropriate change from inside the commit. > git-bisect also works a lot better if your commits are "clean" and > "uncluttered".
I've tried doing this. Then I looked back and noticed that I was spending a LOT of time making the VCS pretty, just in case and rarely had to revert anything. It turned out I was spending a lot of time to save a little time and that's just not path to being productive. Scott K -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/2844385.4hKU8VhLLv@scott-latitude-e6320
