Re: git versus CVS (versus bk)

Joel Becker [off-list ref] writes:

On Mon, Oct 31, 2005 at 01:00:18PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:

quoted

Do you think anybody is that perfect?

	I was being slightly facetious.  Of course everyone makes
mistakes and corrects them.  But if you _want_ the history, you have to
take it.  Otherwise, you are required to throw away the history
completely.  And that -- do you want the whole history or none of it --
is the crux of my question.

	I could care less about preserving my public image.  I'm an
idiot, I screw up all the time.  I only care that the tip of my tree is
respectable.
	I've seen arguments from folks on both sides -- the intermediate
history is important, warts and all, vs throw it all out for a clean
public history.  It seems that you fall into the second camp.
	That's fine, but can we make that work model a first-class
citizen?  Can we get a script that pulls one branch as a single,
un-historied (sic) commit into the current branch?

I think you read me wrong.  Didn't I say "decompose and make
them into logical stepS", emphasis on plural "S"?

Single big consolidated patch is not what I am advocating for.
It is impossible to review and evaluate.  To be merged into a
public tree, such unhistoried commit is often unacceptable.