On 2 Apr, 04:27, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek- central.gen.new_zealand> wrote: > In message <7a1dd0d8-1978-470b- > > a80d-57478d7f7...@q16g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>, Paul Boddie wrote: > > And I've heard stories of "bait and > > switch" with Git: "you can do XYZ with Git but not with ..." followed > > by the discovery that you can't realistically do XYZ with Git, either. > > Cite?
Well, I "heard" stories rather than read them, so I can't cite them, but I believe that one argument crafted to favour Git was that it is great for history editing, but it turns out that it isn't so great, as the following commentary points out: "You can do it, but as soon as you go to merge with another repo that had the unedited commit history, you’ll bump into weirdness (and probably invalidate your whole reason for rebasing, which was to clean up the history)." - http://adam.blog.heroku.com/past/2008/6/30/rebasing_is_editing_commits/ I'm sure other people have their own tales of a similar nature. Paul -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
