> In my books its a minus that you can not rewrite history. Yeah. Here Mercurial has a very good idea. It records which commits are public and immutable and wh

> In my books its a minus that you can not rewrite history. Yeah. Here Mercurial has a very good idea. It records which commits are public and immutable and which commits are drafts and editable. A draft becomes immutable once published, but public commits can always go back to being drafts with a --force, incurring an "everyone out of the pool" scenario. There's nothing wrong with rewriting commits as long as everyone agrees where the boundary lies between published history and drafts. For git, this boundary is often set by a convention such as this: rewrite feature branches all you want, but master must never be rewritten.