3 ms·

I kinda hope you’re being sarcastic, but it doesn’t sound like it, so I’ll respond with a straight face. Why would anyone ever want to capture typos, especially

by dahart 5y ago

I kinda hope you’re being sarcastic, but it doesn’t sound like it, so I’ll respond with a straight face. Why would anyone ever want to capture typos, especially if they never got saved? I definitely don’t want that kind of pure noise when I review changes. The context & argument you’re repeating here but either missing the true essence of, or teasing about, is the view that since git rebase edits commit history it is bad. The Fossil devs have long been advocating this view using hyperbolic language like saying git is ‘lying’. This unfortunately incorrect framing stems from Fossil having different goals and assumptions than git, and the Fossil devs projecting their dogmatic views on their perceived competition. But… even the Fossil devs are not actually advocating capturing every single keystroke.

Buttons840 5y ago
He's not being sarcastic I think. The point is people talk about rebasing and squashing a commit with a typo, and then people argue against this because it's "rewriting the history". But, as you say, why would anyone ever want to capture that typo?
- dahart 5y ago
  I actually managed to get Dr. Hipp to slightly soften the language on the Fossil page once, in a thread right here on HN regarding git. I’m a huge fan of his work and SQLite, and respect him a lot, but I think the git is lying thing is a terrible tactical mistake backed only by assumption and (possibly willful) misunderstanding, and just needs to die. Fundamentally, git consciously and intentionally provides tools to edit history. It’s fine, it’s great, to write a new tool with a new goal of making history immutable. That’s awesome. But that does not mean git or the people who use git are being “deceitful” and it seems a little bogus to throw around that kind of judgemental hyperbole, especially when there’s an underlying competitive conflict of interest.
  - richie_adler 5y ago
    > I actually managed to get Dr. Hipp to slightly soften the language on the Fossil page once, in a thread right here on HN regarding git He did because AFAIK he's an extremely nice guy who gladly suffers fools; I guess that's for ideological reasons, and that's his choice. I found your own participation in the whole ordeal deeply insulting. But, again, that's me exclusively. I'm just a happy Fossil user.
    - dahart 5y ago
      I understand your emotional reaction to me criticizing Dr. Hipp. Believe it or not, I have no doubt he’s a nice person, and I mean it when I say I respect him. But you seem to be making assumptions and defending him reflexively without knowing what happened in the past, or even really understanding this argument. You haven’t explained your insult, therefore I suppose I have no choice but to ignore that remark. I made a very small amount of headway before because he agreed with me that I was right about one very specific piece of the exaggerated language on Fossil’s web page. He has, however, and despite my pointed questions, held firmly to his belief that editing commit history is lying and should be considered a crime, as demonstrated here. Look, I think it’s absolutely great if you like Fossil. And I also think it’s great if Fossil has immutable history and cares about it deeply. My beef here is with saying that git rebase is a “lie”, being “deceitful”, “fabricating” things, etc. That is an untrue claim, it’s ironically itself completely dishonest. If you like Fossil and want others to use it too, it might be worth reflecting on how Fossil’s marketing pages are actually pushing some people away from trying it. That’s what the claims about git really are: marketing. The dogma that allows someone to go around calling others a liar over the tools they use to write code is what’s deeply insulting, and Dr. Hipp has had far, far more influence already than I ever will. You can stand next to this dogma if you like, but I think you’ll be on the wrong side of history. For now, blind followers everywhere like to parrot the claim that git rebase is a lie, without being equipped to defend this idea because they don’t actually share it deeply and haven’t been thoughtful enough on their own to understand the implications.
richie_adler 5y ago
> the Fossil devs projecting their dogmatic views on their perceived competition. Meanwhile, you project your disdain towards Fossil in your own hyperbolic comments and the use of intentionally divisive words like "perceived competition". Fossil is not competing with anyone. > Fossil is a distributed version control system (DVCS) written beginning in 2007 by the architect of SQLite for the purpose of managing the SQLite project. Though Fossil was originally written specifically to support SQLite, it is now also used by countless other projects. (Fossil docs) I'm not speaking for the Fossil project, but I'd bet that the only undesired consequence of Git's existence in their minds is the unfortunate phenomenon of ocasional Githeads stumping into Fossil's forums, foaming in the mouth about how Fossil is All That's Wrong in the Universe and how its existence is unbearable unless they change it to be more like Git. Yeah, I can use hyperbole too. How nice!
- dahart 5y ago
  > Fossil is not competing with anyone. False. This page is proof. https://www.fossil-scm.org/home/doc/trunk/www/fossil-v-git.wiki https://www.fossil-scm.org/home/doc/trunk/www/fossil-v-git.w... > I’d bet that the only undesired consequence of Git’s existence in their minds is the unfortunate phenomenon of ocasional [sic] Githeads stumping into Fossil’s forums Wrong again, you lost that bet. You owe me a beer. https://www.fossil-scm.org/home/doc/trunk/www/rebaseharm.md https://www.fossil-scm.org/home/doc/trunk/www/rebaseharm.md You need to actually read the Fossil pages first to understand what this argument is even about. You are providing evidence that you’re just attacking me without understanding the history. > I can use hyperbole too. Do you realize that you’re totally validating my whole argument? Because you’re calling my argument hyperbole and a straw man, when I’m accurately describing what Fossil and it’s author have said about git rebase, without realizing it you are agreeing with me and disagreeing with @SQLite. You claimed that my question about rebase being a felony was a straw man, when in fact that’s exactly what @SQLite said literally. You called @SQLite’s idea ridiculous, not mine. You are disagreeing with the core belief that Dr. Hipp holds that modifying code history should be at the level of a criminal offense. I’m upvoting you because you are proving my point.
kazinator 5y ago
> Why would anyone ever want to capture typos, especially if they never got saved? Thus why would anyone ever publish bad versions of private commits in an anonymous, unpublished branch that were locally rewritten N times?
- dahart 5y ago
  I don’t understand what you’re trying to say. I don’t want to publish bad versions of private commits. That’s a reason to rebase. I like cleaning up local changes before publishing, and I like it when other people do too. I want to understand and preserve the semantic content of changes, not some useless timestamped log of every keystroke.

by dahart 5y ago

Buttons840 5y ago

He's not being sarcastic I think. The point is people talk about rebasing and squashing a commit with a typo, and then people argue against this because it's "rewriting the history". But, as you say, why would anyone ever want to capture that typo?

dahart 5y ago
I actually managed to get Dr. Hipp to slightly soften the language on the Fossil page once, in a thread right here on HN regarding git. I’m a huge fan of his work and SQLite, and respect him a lot, but I think the git is lying thing is a terrible tactical mistake backed only by assumption and (possibly willful) misunderstanding, and just needs to die. Fundamentally, git consciously and intentionally provides tools to edit history. It’s fine, it’s great, to write a new tool with a new goal of making history immutable. That’s awesome. But that does not mean git or the people who use git are being “deceitful” and it seems a little bogus to throw around that kind of judgemental hyperbole, especially when there’s an underlying competitive conflict of interest.
- richie_adler 5y ago
  > I actually managed to get Dr. Hipp to slightly soften the language on the Fossil page once, in a thread right here on HN regarding git He did because AFAIK he's an extremely nice guy who gladly suffers fools; I guess that's for ideological reasons, and that's his choice. I found your own participation in the whole ordeal deeply insulting. But, again, that's me exclusively. I'm just a happy Fossil user.
  - dahart 5y ago
    I understand your emotional reaction to me criticizing Dr. Hipp. Believe it or not, I have no doubt he’s a nice person, and I mean it when I say I respect him. But you seem to be making assumptions and defending him reflexively without knowing what happened in the past, or even really understanding this argument. You haven’t explained your insult, therefore I suppose I have no choice but to ignore that remark. I made a very small amount of headway before because he agreed with me that I was right about one very specific piece of the exaggerated language on Fossil’s web page. He has, however, and despite my pointed questions, held firmly to his belief that editing commit history is lying and should be considered a crime, as demonstrated here. Look, I think it’s absolutely great if you like Fossil. And I also think it’s great if Fossil has immutable history and cares about it deeply. My beef here is with saying that git rebase is a “lie”, being “deceitful”, “fabricating” things, etc. That is an untrue claim, it’s ironically itself completely dishonest. If you like Fossil and want others to use it too, it might be worth reflecting on how Fossil’s marketing pages are actually pushing some people away from trying it. That’s what the claims about git really are: marketing. The dogma that allows someone to go around calling others a liar over the tools they use to write code is what’s deeply insulting, and Dr. Hipp has had far, far more influence already than I ever will. You can stand next to this dogma if you like, but I think you’ll be on the wrong side of history. For now, blind followers everywhere like to parrot the claim that git rebase is a lie, without being equipped to defend this idea because they don’t actually share it deeply and haven’t been thoughtful enough on their own to understand the implications.

richie_adler 5y ago

> the Fossil devs projecting their dogmatic views on their perceived competition. Meanwhile, you project your disdain towards Fossil in your own hyperbolic comments and the use of intentionally divisive words like "perceived competition". Fossil is not competing with anyone. > Fossil is a distributed version control system (DVCS) written beginning in 2007 by the architect of SQLite for the purpose of managing the SQLite project. Though Fossil was originally written specifically to support SQLite, it is now also used by countless other projects. (Fossil docs) I'm not speaking for the Fossil project, but I'd bet that the only undesired consequence of Git's existence in their minds is the unfortunate phenomenon of ocasional Githeads stumping into Fossil's forums, foaming in the mouth about how Fossil is All That's Wrong in the Universe and how its existence is unbearable unless they change it to be more like Git. Yeah, I can use hyperbole too. How nice!

dahart 5y ago
> Fossil is not competing with anyone. False. This page is proof. https://www.fossil-scm.org/home/doc/trunk/www/fossil-v-git.wiki https://www.fossil-scm.org/home/doc/trunk/www/fossil-v-git.w... > I’d bet that the only undesired consequence of Git’s existence in their minds is the unfortunate phenomenon of ocasional [sic] Githeads stumping into Fossil’s forums Wrong again, you lost that bet. You owe me a beer. https://www.fossil-scm.org/home/doc/trunk/www/rebaseharm.md https://www.fossil-scm.org/home/doc/trunk/www/rebaseharm.md You need to actually read the Fossil pages first to understand what this argument is even about. You are providing evidence that you’re just attacking me without understanding the history. > I can use hyperbole too. Do you realize that you’re totally validating my whole argument? Because you’re calling my argument hyperbole and a straw man, when I’m accurately describing what Fossil and it’s author have said about git rebase, without realizing it you are agreeing with me and disagreeing with @SQLite. You claimed that my question about rebase being a felony was a straw man, when in fact that’s exactly what @SQLite said literally. You called @SQLite’s idea ridiculous, not mine. You are disagreeing with the core belief that Dr. Hipp holds that modifying code history should be at the level of a criminal offense. I’m upvoting you because you are proving my point.

kazinator 5y ago

> Why would anyone ever want to capture typos, especially if they never got saved? Thus why would anyone ever publish bad versions of private commits in an anonymous, unpublished branch that were locally rewritten N times?

dahart 5y ago
I don’t understand what you’re trying to say. I don’t want to publish bad versions of private commits. That’s a reason to rebase. I like cleaning up local changes before publishing, and I like it when other people do too. I want to understand and preserve the semantic content of changes, not some useless timestamped log of every keystroke.