On Mon, 31 Oct 2005, Joel Becker wrote:
quoted text
> 
> 	In the CVS/Subversion world, this merge becomes a single commit
> on the "main" line of development ("trunk", or whatever you call it).
> The merge has no concept of the steps taken to create the change, just
> the actual patch.  This has the disadvantage that you have to work hard
> in the branch namespace to find the actual steps taken (the working
> repository for the feature), but the advantage that a quick look does
> not have to wade through fits and starts as the feature takes shape.

Note that I'm a big proponent of people cleaning up their private 
work-in-progress trees before merging.

In fact, I'll refuse to merge with too dirty a repository. It's ok to have 
some fixes for mistakes, but if you have a lot of ugly stuff, use git to 
first track the development, and then start a new branch that has the 
cleaned-up version in it.

quoted text
> > So with the distributed model, you don't have to publicly humiliate 
> > yourself when you do something stupid. Similarly, you don't have to 
> 
> because that history will contain all your something stupids, plus your
> fixes for them.

No, exactly because you do _not_ have to publicly humiliate yourself with 
showing what a nincompoop you are.

People should try things out, but they should clean up their worst 
mistakes too. Git allows both.

		Linus
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html