4 ms·

I would certainly like to see this mythical tool that can support both: * Separating out different conceptual changes that are/were reviewed together and * Tr

I would certainly like to see this mythical tool that can support both: * Separating out different conceptual changes that are/were reviewed together and * Transparently cleanup a messy history that starts with a few base commits (corresponding to the conceptual changes) followed by a bunch of fixup commits for issues found by CI and review. That is the main problem solved by rebasing. I have yet to see even a coherent proposal for what the alternative would look like.

dreamcompiler 3y ago
This could work with "meta-commit" messages added to groups of commits after the fact. Such messages could be parsed by the log display program. Git notes is the obvious tool for adding such metadata.
naasking 3y ago
See this for a proper evisceration of rebase and what a proper tool would do: https://fossil-scm.org/home/doc/trunk/www/rebaseharm.md https://fossil-scm.org/home/doc/trunk/www/rebaseharm.md
- atq2119 3y ago
  This is yet another article that doesn't really seem to get it. For example: it argues that many small check-ins are better for bisecting -- but enabling a development process that encourages many small commits while still allowing bisect to work is one of the big reasons of rebase's existence! (Perhaps the author is biased/doesn't understand common use cases because SQLite has a famously thorough test suite that almost nobody else comes close to. SQLite's development flow is also comparatively simple: the Linux kernel, for example, has orders of magnitude more developers.) That said, it gets quite close to an interesting idea here: > Second, if Git remembered the source of cherry-picks in commits, Git users might have a better argument for avoiding rebase, because they’d have an alternative that didn’t lose history. I like the idea of properly remembering cherry-pick sources in commit metadata. It would be a cool thing to have, and potentially sometimes useful. But try to really imagine a world where this is how Git worked. How would you solve the two problems I stated in my GP comment? You'd just transform state A of a branch into state B by performing a sequence of cherry-picks. And that's pretty much exactly what git rebase is... So no, the author's proposal wouldn't eliminate the need for the rebase flow. It would subtly change the result of a rebase in a way that preserves more history. Which may or may not be useful, but I mostly wouldn't mind it. (Just for your consideration, losing history can be important when you're maintaining a mixture of open and closed source / trade secret branches. You may not care personally, but being pragmatic about such things has certainly helped git.)
  - naasking 3y ago
    > Perhaps the author is biased/doesn't understand common use cases because SQLite has a famously thorough test suite that almost nobody else comes close to I'm sure they understand the use cases quite well, and designed their Fossil VCS to address these faults. > And that's pretty much exactly what git rebase is... Except rebase disconnects it from the history where the author's solution does not. A view on a SQL table does not change the underlying data, it just presents it differently. That's the difference between what the author's proposal and yours.

dreamcompiler 3y ago

This could work with "meta-commit" messages added to groups of commits after the fact. Such messages could be parsed by the log display program. Git notes is the obvious tool for adding such metadata.

naasking 3y ago

See this for a proper evisceration of rebase and what a proper tool would do: https://fossil-scm.org/home/doc/trunk/www/rebaseharm.md https://fossil-scm.org/home/doc/trunk/www/rebaseharm.md

atq2119 3y ago
This is yet another article that doesn't really seem to get it. For example: it argues that many small check-ins are better for bisecting -- but enabling a development process that encourages many small commits while still allowing bisect to work is one of the big reasons of rebase's existence! (Perhaps the author is biased/doesn't understand common use cases because SQLite has a famously thorough test suite that almost nobody else comes close to. SQLite's development flow is also comparatively simple: the Linux kernel, for example, has orders of magnitude more developers.) That said, it gets quite close to an interesting idea here: > Second, if Git remembered the source of cherry-picks in commits, Git users might have a better argument for avoiding rebase, because they’d have an alternative that didn’t lose history. I like the idea of properly remembering cherry-pick sources in commit metadata. It would be a cool thing to have, and potentially sometimes useful. But try to really imagine a world where this is how Git worked. How would you solve the two problems I stated in my GP comment? You'd just transform state A of a branch into state B by performing a sequence of cherry-picks. And that's pretty much exactly what git rebase is... So no, the author's proposal wouldn't eliminate the need for the rebase flow. It would subtly change the result of a rebase in a way that preserves more history. Which may or may not be useful, but I mostly wouldn't mind it. (Just for your consideration, losing history can be important when you're maintaining a mixture of open and closed source / trade secret branches. You may not care personally, but being pragmatic about such things has certainly helped git.)
- naasking 3y ago
  > Perhaps the author is biased/doesn't understand common use cases because SQLite has a famously thorough test suite that almost nobody else comes close to I'm sure they understand the use cases quite well, and designed their Fossil VCS to address these faults. > And that's pretty much exactly what git rebase is... Except rebase disconnects it from the history where the author's solution does not. A view on a SQL table does not change the underlying data, it just presents it differently. That's the difference between what the author's proposal and yours.