tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2425290326823263574.post3426910410245327011..comments2022-12-04T18:48:06.405-08:00Comments on Krazy Glew's Blog: Jamie Wong's An Argument for Mutable Local HistoryAndy "Krazy" Glewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08442494949914217568noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2425290326823263574.post-70186516335562198502012-08-02T15:37:53.992-07:002012-08-02T15:37:53.992-07:00http://www.phabricator.com/docs/phabricator/articl...http://www.phabricator.com/docs/phabricator/article/Recommendations_on_Revision_Control.html#one-idea-is-one-commit<br /><br />I'm okay on "Choose a strategy where one idea is one commit in the authoritative master/remote version of the repository."<br /><br />In particular "having a strict policy where your master/trunk contains only merge commits and each is a merge between the old master and a branch which represents a single idea. Although this preserves the checkpoint commits along the branches, you can view master alone as a series of single-idea commits."<br /><br />But I emphasize that even if you follow this diligently, you will probably encounter violations that require history editing on the trunk.Andy "Krazy" Glewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08442494949914217568noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2425290326823263574.post-82605578181658581252012-08-02T15:33:39.069-07:002012-08-02T15:33:39.069-07:00JW says things like "If enough commits just c...JW says things like "If enough commits just came down, your feature branches won’t even show up on the same screen as master any more".<br /><br />Basically complaining about the PRESENTATION of the history.<br /><br />IMHO that's a reason to fix glog, not to mutate the history. It is a reason to amend the presentation of the history, but not the raw history.<br /><br />I'd prefer a rebase that left the pre-rebased branch around at its original location. Perhaps hidden.Andy "Krazy" Glewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08442494949914217568noreply@blogger.com