Fossil SCM
Still more minor edits to the rebaseharm.md document.
Commit
d0807c23ead6517818aff09284cd2e8b67d5d7904db4db8c114f2a77d6e2c6be
Parent
6a903b39e81e641…
1 file changed
+4
-4
+4
-4
| --- www/rebaseharm.md | ||
| +++ www/rebaseharm.md | ||
| @@ -200,16 +200,16 @@ | ||
| 200 | 200 | how your project was made.** You wouldn't publish the first draft of a |
| 201 | 201 | book, and the manual for how to maintain your software deserves careful |
| 202 | 202 | editing. This is the camp that uses tools like rebase and filter-branch |
| 203 | 203 | to tell the story in the way that's best for future readers."_ |
| 204 | 204 | |
| 205 | -The problem with this counter-argument is that it assumes you must | |
| 206 | -change history in order to enhance readability. | |
| 207 | -And, in fairness to the Git documentation authors, changing the | |
| 205 | +This counter-argument assumes you must | |
| 206 | +change history in order to enhance readability, which is not true. | |
| 207 | + | |
| 208 | +In fairness to the Git documentation authors, changing the | |
| 208 | 209 | project history appears to be the only way to make editorial |
| 209 | 210 | changes in Git. |
| 210 | - | |
| 211 | 211 | But it does not have to be that way. |
| 212 | 212 | Fossil supports improvements to "the story of how your project |
| 213 | 213 | was made" without changing the actual history of your project |
| 214 | 214 | by allowing users to: |
| 215 | 215 | |
| 216 | 216 |
| --- www/rebaseharm.md | |
| +++ www/rebaseharm.md | |
| @@ -200,16 +200,16 @@ | |
| 200 | how your project was made.** You wouldn't publish the first draft of a |
| 201 | book, and the manual for how to maintain your software deserves careful |
| 202 | editing. This is the camp that uses tools like rebase and filter-branch |
| 203 | to tell the story in the way that's best for future readers."_ |
| 204 | |
| 205 | The problem with this counter-argument is that it assumes you must |
| 206 | change history in order to enhance readability. |
| 207 | And, in fairness to the Git documentation authors, changing the |
| 208 | project history appears to be the only way to make editorial |
| 209 | changes in Git. |
| 210 | |
| 211 | But it does not have to be that way. |
| 212 | Fossil supports improvements to "the story of how your project |
| 213 | was made" without changing the actual history of your project |
| 214 | by allowing users to: |
| 215 | |
| 216 |
| --- www/rebaseharm.md | |
| +++ www/rebaseharm.md | |
| @@ -200,16 +200,16 @@ | |
| 200 | how your project was made.** You wouldn't publish the first draft of a |
| 201 | book, and the manual for how to maintain your software deserves careful |
| 202 | editing. This is the camp that uses tools like rebase and filter-branch |
| 203 | to tell the story in the way that's best for future readers."_ |
| 204 | |
| 205 | This counter-argument assumes you must |
| 206 | change history in order to enhance readability, which is not true. |
| 207 | |
| 208 | In fairness to the Git documentation authors, changing the |
| 209 | project history appears to be the only way to make editorial |
| 210 | changes in Git. |
| 211 | But it does not have to be that way. |
| 212 | Fossil supports improvements to "the story of how your project |
| 213 | was made" without changing the actual history of your project |
| 214 | by allowing users to: |
| 215 | |
| 216 |