> Being able to lie You’ve lost me from the start, this is 100% bad faith argument. This is against HN guidelines too, the mods have confirmed that parroting D

> Being able to lie You’ve lost me from the start, this is 100% bad faith argument. This is against HN guidelines too, the mods have confirmed that parroting Dr. Hipp’s hyperbole is not welcome here. The irony is that calling it a “lie” is pure hypocrisy on your part. You already know that rebase wasn’t invented for the purposes of deceiving anyone, and you’re already aware that nobody using git is under the impression that commits won’t get rearranged (rebase is proof of that), nobody is expecting git commit dependencies to represent the historical order events happened in, because that’s not the way git works and not what it was designed to do, which means you are the one lying here. If you don’t know or can’t talk about git’s design in terms of what git designers were actually intending, then Chesterton’s Fence, you don’t get to tear it down. What’s so sad about this is you and other Fossil followers are stuck on the bogus bad faith argument, lowering yourselves to attacking and name-calling, when a good faith argument exists and is just waiting for you to adopt it. You don’t have to repeat this stupid hyperbole. There are good reasons to consider other DVCS designs. There are ways to talk about and justify and sell what Hg and Fossil do without trying to villainize git and git users. For your own sake, and for the sake of setting a better example for other Fossil fans, try to find the strength to shed yourself of the negativity and explain why other systems are better than git while maintaining the stance that git was a good design for it’s time. If you can’t do that, then seriously, consider the possibility that the thing you’re arguing over actually isn’t better.