Sergey Organov <sorganov@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > When Junio noticed and pointed to this deficiency, I asked him if I > should fix all the series from the start, or it'd be OK to use fixup > commit. As he didn't answer and nobody else commented either, I opted > for the latter. Sorry if it slipped through the cracks---I get too many discussion threads to pay attention to. Yes, we strongly prefer *not* to keep the honest history that records all the mistakes we made along the way. Rather, we take the time a topic is still in flight and not yet cast in stone by merged to 'next' as an opportunity to pretend that the topic came to existence in the perfect shape, thanks to collective brain effort. It is our basic courtesy to future developers who has to read our code (i.e. "log -p") to understand what we've been thinking, when they want to fix some stupid bugs we will inevitably leave in our codebase. It is distracting to read from the beginning of a topic, notice something funny going on and keep moveing to later patches, while harboring puzzlement in our minds, then later discover that the funny thing we noticed earlier was a simple mistake that gets fixed, not some clever trick the reader needs to think deeply to understand. Thanks.
