> I can't for the life of me understand this pursuit of a (fake) linear history Git is a highly useful tool but it's also an incredibly flawed one, especially

> I can't for the life of me understand this pursuit of a (fake) linear history Git is a highly useful tool but it's also an incredibly flawed one, especially in that most critical aspect for all software: the merger of technical and human concerns. Git is a useful set of source control primitives but it's lacking the cohesion necessary to make it a truly great tool. The fact that it's so popular is largely a consequence of the state of competition rather than its own internal awesomeness. One consequence of this is that instead of a robust, well thought out set of use cases which mesh well with various real-world applications git instead has a few hacky workarounds for certain scenarios. This results in the inevitable wobbliness of any system built on top of hacks and leaky abstractions. Rebasing being perhaps the ultimate example of just that. Personally I think history should largely be treated as immutable (it's funny how in programming we've become more and more attuned to the values of immutability while in source control we've become more amenable to mutability) but with some sort of system designed to make viewing history easier for the user (lots of other source control products have precisely this, it's sort of silly that git doesn't).