[Haskell-cafe] Darcs vs Git

Ivan Lazar Miljenovic ivan.miljenovic at gmail.com
Sun Nov 15 01:31:15 UTC 2015

On 15 November 2015 at 09:37, Mike Meyer <mwm at mired.org> wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 14, 2015 at 2:52 PM Joachim Durchholz <jo at durchholz.org> wrote:
>> Am 14.11.2015 um 21:10 schrieb Mike Meyer:
>> > Since we're talking about this, ones is the reasons I dislike for is
>> > that
>> > it treats the project history just like any other prolix public
>> > document,
>> > providing tools for modifying it, changing it as you push or pull, etc.
>> > I
>> > disagree with this, and prefer tools that believe that history should be
>> > immutable, like hg and fossil.
>> Just curious: Why?
> Philosophical. I want history to reflect the way things actually happened.
>> So I think the difference is less relevant than most people think - but
>> then maybe I'm overlooking something, so what's your take?
> I'm not convinced that a rebase in lieu of a merge doesn't hide where bugs
> are introduced. But that's minor to not wanting history hidden. I even had
> someone ask that I collapse a bunch of changes when I pushed them to my
> github repo before creating a PR. Not going to happen.

On the other hand, when accepting a PR, I don't want it to be full of
lots of little "let's see if this worked; nope I need a second commit"
messages cluttering up the git log: I recently had such a case where
there were empty commits called "test commit", etc.  Or in my own
work, if I accidentally forgot to include a hunk in a commit I prefer
to squash that change with the commit it was meant to be in rather
than have an extra commit.

Ivan Lazar Miljenovic
Ivan.Miljenovic at gmail.com

More information about the Haskell-Cafe mailing list