Earlier quoted context omitted.
nah, rebasing is white lies. everybody is in on it. not all lies are malicious. rebasing is "rewriting history". where I'm from "rewriting history" is lying..
> not all lies are malicious The Fossil manual is pretty clear about calling it deceit. “By discarding parentage information, rebase attempts to deceive the reader about how the code actually came together.” > where I’m from “rewriting history” is lying... What history? Rebase is normally used before push. Rebase is used before it’s “history” to someone other than yourself.
In the event it's done before pushing, it's still lying, albeit to yourself—it is falsifying the record of what actually happened. The clearest way of conveying this is with the word "lying." Perhaps "falsifying" or even "manipulating" would also appropriately convey this fact. And conveying facts accurately is arguing in good faith. Not to mention it is not only ever done while contained to the local checkout, in which case it is not just lying to yourself. Being triggered over trivialities is one thing, but to be triggered over a factual representation of the feature that comports with Git's own notion is something else. Try not to let it keep you from trying something that may productively fit your workflow—it could make life simpler. And it appears that you're attaching the value judgement—no-one is accusing people of being malicious. Instead, we are truthfully reporting what has happened; when you rebase, you are presenting events not as they historically occurred—but how you would prefer it had occurred. Nonetheless, Fossil enables curating the presentation of that history however you, or I, or Thomas or Jane would like; while keeping a true and unfalsified historical record. It's the best of both worlds—you're not forced to recount your mess and mistakes every time you look at the log. But for auditing purposes, the real timeline is still intact.