5 ms·
As someone not versed in either, how much does not being able to track changes forward through the history matter? It sounds like that might be pretty important
by orev 8y ago
As someone not versed in either, how much does not being able to track changes forward through the history matter? It sounds like that might be pretty important, but git’s popularity would seem to indicate that it doesn’t really matter in practice?
- shawkinaw 8y agoI have to say, I’ve used Git for many years now and I’ve never, ever, ever wished for this, nor even knew it wasn’t possible. So this seems like a silly thing to claim as an advantage for Fossil.
- SQLite 8y agoI never thought I needed bisect, until I had it. Now I can't live without it.
- shawkinaw 8y agoYeah totally fair point. I figured there’s probably some usecase I haven’t run into for this feature. Still, I think it says something that I’ve never missed it despite some fairly advanced Git usage.
- cryptonector 8y agoI don't know what you mean. In general upstreams in Git do not allow history rewriting. It's only the forks (local branches) that allow history rewriting. This is just fine. Also, when upstreams do accept non-fast-forward pushes, there's `git rebase --onto` for recovery by downstreams.