[Haskell-cafe] Darcs vs Git

[Ivan Lazar Miljenovic]

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
http://IvanMiljenovic.wordpress.com