What actual reasons do you need to preserve your merge mistake? When will it be needed again, and what for? Why should people who saw it need to see it again la

What actual reasons do you need to preserve your merge mistake? When will it be needed again, and what for? Why should people who saw it need to see it again later? Do they want to build the code with the mistake, or do they just want the fix? Who is going to look for the mistake? Who is going to complain if they can’t find it? Git doesn’t erase mistakes. It presents a second, separate graph of commits after rebase than before. Both graphs are still there, nothing is erased, and nothing is destroyed. It’s quite important, as a VCS, that nothing is destroyed because it means if I do it wrong, I can undo. > To erase an entry in the financial ledger of a company is fraud. It is a felony. […] I believe that VCSes should be treated similarly. You want people who fix code mistakes to go to jail if they don’t keep a record of the mistake? Why? There’s a very, very good reason that actually lying on financial ledgers is illegal, while quietly fixing a merge mistake is not. You are conflating so many things in this broken analogy that it’s difficult to respond to. Financial ledgers are one of the very few things in the world where history is required by law to be sacrosanct, and companies know this and agree to it in advance. The number of editable things in the world that aren’t expected to preserve history and aren’t illegal are uncountable. Nobody’s going to jail if they erase a bad chapter in a book or movie script. Nobody’s committing a felony if they tear down a house and rebuild it. Nobody is being called a deceitful liar when they erase a mistake on their math test and write down the correct answer. Your belief was not shared by the designers of git (nor of any other DVCS before Fossil). This is the core of why your claims about git are wrong. No promise was ever made to preserve history as it happened, that was never part of the intent in its design. Therefore the very argument that git is being deceitful is a dishonest argument - it’s a projection of your personal goals onto other people and other’s people’s software, not a true story about why git was designed the way it is. The fact that your telling is motivated by trying to convince people to use Fossil over git just makes the hyperbolic framing seem extra cheesy. > If you want to say that commits to your private branches are not part of the permanent record, and that you should therefore be permitted to edit those private branches, then I think you have a stronger case. That is, in fact, the primary use of rebase, by a mile. I’m certain you already know this. Which is a big part of why all the hyperbole about fraud, lying, deceit is ironically not an honest narrative. > Shunning is a mechanism for removing illegal and illegitimate content. So is rebase. Sometimes that’s how it’s used. Maybe it happens, but I’ve never seen public history intentionally rebased other than in emergencies. So what, exactly, is preventing people from using shun for legitimate content day-to-day? Are you policing it’s use?