On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 7:20 PM, Oleg Broytman <phd at phdru.name> wrote:
> Thanks. I think upstream remote-tracking branches in git are rather
> similar. If one's afraid of rewriting published history she should never
> rebase before @{u}. Just always using ``git rebase -i @{u}`` should be
> good enough.
> The biggest difference here is that git doesn't stop one to rebase
> beyond @{upstream}.
Incidentally, "git rebase -i" with no argument defaults to rebasing
everything unpushed, which is exactly what you're talking about. But
yes, it's perfectly possible to rebase more than that, which I've done
extremely rarely but sufficiently often to appreciate it. Yes, there
are consequences. All magic comes with a price. But sometimes those
consequences are worth accepting.
With git, there are infinite workflows possible - you aren't forced to
have a concept of "central server" and "clients" the way you would
with SVN. Mercurial's called a DVCS too, so presumably it's possible
to operate on a pure-peering model with no central server at all; how
does that tie in with the inability to alter some commits?
ChrisA
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4