Re: git bikeshedding (Re: triggers in dpkg, and dpkg maintenance)
On Mon February 25 2008 9:31:15 am Otavio Salvador wrote:
> Right. Well said.
> This however doesn't changes the value of logical changes. I doubt
> git.git people would accept patches like:
> "Now it compiles again"
> "Ouch! Syntax error"
> "First try to get it done"
> It's much nicer to have something like:
> "Implements the basis for feature 'foo'"
> "Changes code to use new feature 'foo'"
> and avoid all the messy commits done in the way.
I would rather have the original history. After all, isn't that what version
control is for? Preserving history?
Because perhaps in my attempt to fix a syntax error I inadvertantly messed up
some logic that I don't notice until a year later. Perhaps if I then look
at $DVCS blame I can see that "Ouch! Syntax error" changed that logic, and
if I then look at the patch, it may be quite easy to see what the syntax
error was and how I fixed it incorrectly.
One could easily do this hacking on a separate branch, then merge --no-ff
into the main branch, and submit that. You'd have one logical top-level
commit plus the whole history leading to it if you care.
Also, I don't get why git people are so uptight about this.
"Dirty history" is not only tolerated, but the *only* sane option with,
lesse... rcs cvs svn darcs tla baz (bzr?)
Only the git and hg people seem to care (and the git people a lot more than