On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 10:49:01AM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > Rewriting the history is useful only when [...] > the whole argumentation is besides the point, as we're talking about non-mainline branches.
> Note that the work in the feature branch should really be kept. This > can be useful if a bug or some suspicious code is discovered later, > in order to know what led to this code or what could be wrong if it > is modified (e.g. simplified). > this has multiple implications: - you cannot push the fixed up patches for review into the same branch. - the wip branch will never be merged. and as it also won't be deleted, will will stay forever active in hg terms (though i guess you can still hide it). - the case that something suspicious is discovered later should never happen when the final review is thorough. of course that is wishful thinking, but so is being able to reconstruct the reasoning that lead to some weird code form a messy history.
