3 ms·

You lay the burden to ensure that you can't make mistakes (rewrite history) on the developers of fossil. If, for some reason, fossil allowed to rewrite the hist

You lay the burden to ensure that you can't make mistakes (rewrite history) on the developers of fossil. If, for some reason, fossil allowed to rewrite the history it would be considered a bug and promptly fixed. Yet, for some reason, you don't expect the same from the sysadmins who set up the git repository (ie. set it up so that non-fast forward updates are rejected). We can debate whether Git's default is sensible or not.

CasaDeRobison 11y ago
I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at. Sure I expect sysadmins to configure things properly. I also expect people to be human and make mistakes. My only point was that despite everyone's best intentions, it can still happen and it can be a pain to fix. If the functionality was not there, it would have been a non-issue. Is fossil perfect? Is any software perfect? Of course not. I was merely describing a single pain point I recently experienced that would not have happened without the ability to make changes to published history.