Fossil SCM
Remove inflammatory language about "lying" from the "rebase considered harmful" article.
Commit
19d0a94a7b2434154c79fb24b7da95160e8b5b2ff93b0741f977da9081f5f1f0
Parent
97610f82f90ac91…
1 file changed
+2
-8
+2
-8
| --- www/rebaseharm.md | ||
| +++ www/rebaseharm.md | ||
| @@ -293,22 +293,16 @@ | ||
| 293 | 293 | unique timestamps for C3' and C5' but then you lose the information |
| 294 | 294 | about when those check-ins were originally created, which can make |
| 295 | 295 | historical analysis of changes more difficult. It might also |
| 296 | 296 | complicate the legal defense of prior art claims. |
| 297 | 297 | |
| 298 | -## <a name="lying"></a>5.0 Rebasing is lying about the project history | |
| 298 | +## <a name="lying"></a>5.0 Rebase misrepresents the project history | |
| 299 | 299 | |
| 300 | 300 | By discarding parentage information, rebase attempts to deceive the |
| 301 | 301 | reader about how the code actually came together. |
| 302 | 302 | |
| 303 | -You may be tempted to dismiss this as an anti-Git opinion on a Fossil | |
| 304 | -web site, but it’s spelled out just like that [in the Git rebase | |
| 305 | -documentation][gitrebase]. It speaks of “lying,” “telling stories,” | |
| 306 | -and “blasphemy.” | |
| 307 | - | |
| 308 | -That section of the Git docs is contrasting rebase with merge, which we | |
| 309 | -cover [above](#cap-loss), but Git’s rebase feature is more than just an | |
| 303 | +Git’s rebase feature is more than just an | |
| 310 | 304 | alternative to merging: it also provides mechanisms for changing the |
| 311 | 305 | project history in order to make editorial changes. Fossil shows that |
| 312 | 306 | you can get similar effects without modifying historical records, |
| 313 | 307 | allowing users to: |
| 314 | 308 | |
| 315 | 309 |
| --- www/rebaseharm.md | |
| +++ www/rebaseharm.md | |
| @@ -293,22 +293,16 @@ | |
| 293 | unique timestamps for C3' and C5' but then you lose the information |
| 294 | about when those check-ins were originally created, which can make |
| 295 | historical analysis of changes more difficult. It might also |
| 296 | complicate the legal defense of prior art claims. |
| 297 | |
| 298 | ## <a name="lying"></a>5.0 Rebasing is lying about the project history |
| 299 | |
| 300 | By discarding parentage information, rebase attempts to deceive the |
| 301 | reader about how the code actually came together. |
| 302 | |
| 303 | You may be tempted to dismiss this as an anti-Git opinion on a Fossil |
| 304 | web site, but it’s spelled out just like that [in the Git rebase |
| 305 | documentation][gitrebase]. It speaks of “lying,” “telling stories,” |
| 306 | and “blasphemy.” |
| 307 | |
| 308 | That section of the Git docs is contrasting rebase with merge, which we |
| 309 | cover [above](#cap-loss), but Git’s rebase feature is more than just an |
| 310 | alternative to merging: it also provides mechanisms for changing the |
| 311 | project history in order to make editorial changes. Fossil shows that |
| 312 | you can get similar effects without modifying historical records, |
| 313 | allowing users to: |
| 314 | |
| 315 |
| --- www/rebaseharm.md | |
| +++ www/rebaseharm.md | |
| @@ -293,22 +293,16 @@ | |
| 293 | unique timestamps for C3' and C5' but then you lose the information |
| 294 | about when those check-ins were originally created, which can make |
| 295 | historical analysis of changes more difficult. It might also |
| 296 | complicate the legal defense of prior art claims. |
| 297 | |
| 298 | ## <a name="lying"></a>5.0 Rebase misrepresents the project history |
| 299 | |
| 300 | By discarding parentage information, rebase attempts to deceive the |
| 301 | reader about how the code actually came together. |
| 302 | |
| 303 | Git’s rebase feature is more than just an |
| 304 | alternative to merging: it also provides mechanisms for changing the |
| 305 | project history in order to make editorial changes. Fossil shows that |
| 306 | you can get similar effects without modifying historical records, |
| 307 | allowing users to: |
| 308 | |
| 309 |