4 ms·

> Why do you feel that you _have_ to be able to correct history? Why do you feel I shouldn't be able to do what I want with my history before others see it? Sh

> Why do you feel that you _have_ to be able to correct history? Why do you feel I shouldn't be able to do what I want with my history before others see it? Shared repos can reject history rewrites, as the parent said. Also, as others have said, fossil does not provide the tools to mutate history, but that doesn't mean that history is immutable. > They are different mindsets. i personally don't mind my mistakes staying in the record, and i am suspicious of people who feel they need to retroactively cover up past mistakes. Who's talking about mistakes? I'm talking about cleaning up a stream of small commits I've made over the day into a smaller number of coherent, sensible commits.

sgbeal 11y ago
"Mistakes" was indeed a poor choice of words, but the principle is the same: fossil does not allow the public record (mistake or otherwise) to change, with the one exception of the "nuclear option" (shunning, which forcibly removes content from the repo). git allows the public record to be flexible forever. "History is written by the victors." Fossil believes that everything in the repo is in the public record and that the public record must never change. "History is recorded as it happened."
- jimktrains2 11y ago
  > fossil does not allow the public record (mistake or otherwise) to change, But you can do the same in git -- the shared repo can reject non fast-forwards. This allows you to rebase your _private_ history and enforces consistency off the share. Granted, in a peer-to-peer model this is less useful, but that isn't how most teams work nor is it how a team that needs immutable history would work.