On 11/05/2013 12:02 PM, Simon King wrote: > Good. So, would you (and other people) agree that the effort needed to > rebase X on top of A-C' is always (i.e., also in the case of conflicts) > the same as the effort needed to rebase X on top of A-B-C-D (where D > reverts B)?
In terms of code the situation at D (in A-B-C-D) agrees with that at C' (in A-C'). I don't see any reason why rebasing X on top of D is in any way different from rebasing it on top of C'. > If you agree, then let me repeat my question: Why do some people believe > that changing A-B-C into A-B-C-D is better than changing it into A-C'? > Because in this case I really don't get the argument. Some people believe that changing history is bad and some don't. I would put it that way: it's a convention. If a developer works on a branch and clearly states that this branch is "work in progress" (In other words he says, nobody should rely on that code.), then I even think it is *good* to publish such work and let other people comment on it. If however wrong code ever gets committed into the "official master branch", then it's "official" and commits that are not wanted should be reverted (i.e. a new commit added) instead of history is rewritten. Well, the question now is whether the Sage convention sees submissions to TRAC more like the first view or more like "official" proposals whose history should be kept. In fact, all Sage developers simply have to agree on one convention. I don't think that one is particularly better than the other. Personally, I somehow tend more to a convention which would forbid history rewriting only for the master branch. And to all branches that got a "positive review". All other stuff is work in progress and thus people know that commits can be reordered or squashed together or even disappear. Work in progress that is publicly seen isn't that bad. How else would one like to collaborate in small groups that work on a restricted field of interest? Code must be shown to collaborators, but whether this code exchange is just via github or via the "official" sage-trac machinery is yet another question. Just my 2 cents Ralf -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
