On Tue, 27 Nov 2007, Johannes Schindelin wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> On Tue, 27 Nov 2007, しらいしななこ wrote:
> 
> > Was it coded poorly, buggy or were there some other issues?
> 
> It is very well possible that it was coded poorly ;-)
> 
> The main reason, I believe, was that some old-timers who know the 
> implications said that it would encourage a wrong workflow.  One thing 
> that could go possibly wrong, for example, is to rebase commits that you 
> already published.

Being much more involved in the maintenance of a published Git tree 
lately, I must disagree with the "wrong workflow" statement.  Until the 
stuff I maintain is finally merged upstream, I have to constantly 
amend/replace/fold/split random commits in my repo to follow the review 
cycles involved.  yet I have to publish the result to let others base 
their work on top of my latest tree.  A fetch+rebase is the only option 
for those following my tree, and I made it clear that they have to 
rebase after a fetch because I constantly rebase commits that I have 
already published myself.

And in this case, constant rebasing is a perfectly fine work flow to me. 
Otherwise I might just use Git as a glorified tarball downloader and use 
quilt on top, but this is somehow not as appealing.


Nicolas