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". -- Kind regards, Loong Jin
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature