On Tue, 27 Nov 2007, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > Hi, > > On Tue, 27 Nov 2007, しらいしななこ wrote: > > > Was it coded poorly, buggy or were there some other issues? > > It is very well possible that it was coded poorly ;-) > > The main reason, I believe, was that some old-timers who know the > implications said that it would encourage a wrong workflow. One thing > that could go possibly wrong, for example, is to rebase commits that you > already published. Being much more involved in the maintenance of a published Git tree lately, I must disagree with the "wrong workflow" statement. Until the stuff I maintain is finally merged upstream, I have to constantly amend/replace/fold/split random commits in my repo to follow the review cycles involved. yet I have to publish the result to let others base their work on top of my latest tree. A fetch+rebase is the only option for those following my tree, and I made it clear that they have to rebase after a fetch because I constantly rebase commits that I have already published myself. And in this case, constant rebasing is a perfectly fine work flow to me. Otherwise I might just use Git as a glorified tarball downloader and use quilt on top, but this is somehow not as appealing. Nicolas
