3 ms·

What history, exactly, is being preserved? If I fix a bug before I commit, then I’m okay. If I commit the bug, then commit the fix, then squash, all locally on

by dahart 6y ago

What history, exactly, is being preserved? If I fix a bug before I commit, then I’m okay. If I commit the bug, then commit the fix, then squash, all locally on my own machine before I push anything, I’m “lying”? You don’t want the ability to edit your own mistakes before showing them to other people, even if you find them before you push? Fossil is not capturing my pre-commit keystrokes, so I can write code and delete it without turning it into a ‘transaction’. Is that lying? What’s sacred about my local branch before I push? In practice, nobody rebases things in public branches except by accident or to fix big mistakes. Rebase is almost entirely a local pre-push workflow. Why should I be preserving my local pre-push history, and why are you calling that “project history”? If “project history” is so sacred that all commits should be declared immutable, how do you suggest fixing accidents like someone checking in SSH keys? Is it impossible to fix security accidents in Fossil? If so, is that good? Why is the word “lying” being used instead of saying something like “the project’s history of transactions is being changed”? Do you think the phrasing is not intentional? Do you believe it’s good faith to accuse tool writers and tool users of being deceitful for just using a tool the way it’s designed? Do you believe the write up on rebase is impartial?

bachmeier 6y ago
I think (a) all of this was explained clearly in the post by SQLite (Fossil creator), and (b) you're overly sensitive to a disagreement about the definition of terms. I agree with him. You don't. That's fine - no kittens will be put to death depending on who is right.
- dahart 6y ago
  Hehe, true, no kittens will die. I'm just debating, so don't get overly sensitive just because I disagree. I don't feel like it was clearly explained, which is why I asked those questions. There's no distinction between local private history and public history shared with others, there's no explanation for the arbitrary line drawn on transaction boundaries, or why those are more sacred than other kinds of project history. There's no clear explanation of why "project history" should be immutable, or even what constitutes "project history" exactly. It sounds generally like a good idea to keep history to me, heck I'm on board! But the reasons to be absolute about it have not at all been clearly established, only stated dogmatically. Everyone jumping on me is defending the use of the words "dishonest", "fabricate", "white-wash", "lying", and "deceive" as though they're merely accurate and not what they are: intentional attempts to induce shame about rebase. My point is, simply, that this is spin and it's misplaced because git was not designed to take away your freedom to modify your commit history.
  - justin66 6y ago
    Nobody was trying to "induce shame." Your comments on this topic are a special kind of crazy.
    - dahart 6y ago
      Of course the article is trying to induce shame; that’s the whole point, to be persuasive that rebase is “harmful”. I believe @SQLite disagrees with you. “Throwing the word "lying" into an argument like this counts as name-calling and flamebait in the sense that the site guidelines use these terms. It leads to distracting, shallow, and therefore more boring conversation. Would you mind reviewing the rules and please not do that? Let's stay focused on exchanging what we're curious about. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html” https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html” https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19886216 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19886216 Name calling only reflects rather poorly on you, and suggests you aren’t able to articulate a response. I’m not the first or the last person to advocate being more honest on this topic.
      - justin66 6y ago
        > Name calling only reflects rather poorly on you I wonder what name you think I called you, since I didn't call you a name. > Of course the article is trying to induce shame Okay, Captain Crazy. (there: that's what name calling looks like) > “Throwing the word "lying" into an argument like this counts as name-calling and flamebait in the sense that the site guidelines use these terms. It leads to distracting, shallow, and therefore more boring conversation. Would you mind reviewing the rules and please not do that? So, this is also crazy, but interesting. I noticed in the above thread that Richard accused a git feature of "lying," which is something a sane person would not take personally, and you absurdly accused him of lying, and apparently you view this as somehow a useful tit-for-tat instead of the terrible behavior it is. But this is delusion. I didn't use the word lying at all, so I wonder what the heck you're even talking about. It's not your honesty or lack thereof that is striking or interesting enough to comment on, it's your bizarre defensiveness about features and documentation, to the point of attacking people who certainly mean well.

by dahart 6y ago

bachmeier 6y ago

I think (a) all of this was explained clearly in the post by SQLite (Fossil creator), and (b) you're overly sensitive to a disagreement about the definition of terms. I agree with him. You don't. That's fine - no kittens will be put to death depending on who is right.

dahart 6y ago
Hehe, true, no kittens will die. I'm just debating, so don't get overly sensitive just because I disagree. I don't feel like it was clearly explained, which is why I asked those questions. There's no distinction between local private history and public history shared with others, there's no explanation for the arbitrary line drawn on transaction boundaries, or why those are more sacred than other kinds of project history. There's no clear explanation of why "project history" should be immutable, or even what constitutes "project history" exactly. It sounds generally like a good idea to keep history to me, heck I'm on board! But the reasons to be absolute about it have not at all been clearly established, only stated dogmatically. Everyone jumping on me is defending the use of the words "dishonest", "fabricate", "white-wash", "lying", and "deceive" as though they're merely accurate and not what they are: intentional attempts to induce shame about rebase. My point is, simply, that this is spin and it's misplaced because git was not designed to take away your freedom to modify your commit history.
- justin66 6y ago
  Nobody was trying to "induce shame." Your comments on this topic are a special kind of crazy.
  - dahart 6y ago
    Of course the article is trying to induce shame; that’s the whole point, to be persuasive that rebase is “harmful”. I believe @SQLite disagrees with you. “Throwing the word "lying" into an argument like this counts as name-calling and flamebait in the sense that the site guidelines use these terms. It leads to distracting, shallow, and therefore more boring conversation. Would you mind reviewing the rules and please not do that? Let's stay focused on exchanging what we're curious about. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html” https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html” https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19886216 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19886216 Name calling only reflects rather poorly on you, and suggests you aren’t able to articulate a response. I’m not the first or the last person to advocate being more honest on this topic.
    - justin66 6y ago
      > Name calling only reflects rather poorly on you I wonder what name you think I called you, since I didn't call you a name. > Of course the article is trying to induce shame Okay, Captain Crazy. (there: that's what name calling looks like) > “Throwing the word "lying" into an argument like this counts as name-calling and flamebait in the sense that the site guidelines use these terms. It leads to distracting, shallow, and therefore more boring conversation. Would you mind reviewing the rules and please not do that? So, this is also crazy, but interesting. I noticed in the above thread that Richard accused a git feature of "lying," which is something a sane person would not take personally, and you absurdly accused him of lying, and apparently you view this as somehow a useful tit-for-tat instead of the terrible behavior it is. But this is delusion. I didn't use the word lying at all, so I wonder what the heck you're even talking about. It's not your honesty or lack thereof that is striking or interesting enough to comment on, it's your bizarre defensiveness about features and documentation, to the point of attacking people who certainly mean well.