Re: wip push- rebase first

[Phil Nelson <phil%NetBSD.org@localhost>]

On Friday 02 October 2015 09:56:02 Timo Buhrmester wrote:
> > ...because lying about history is good?
> Lying about history is bad, iff the history was written already.
> 
> Nothing wrong with rewriting the present to become neatly organized
> history.

This is one of my issues with git.   Because someone else pushed
something before I pushed, with this workflow I now have to do a
rebase rather than just an update and a commit.   I have personally
found that git rebase to be much more painful than the corresponding
CVS update and commit.

> Is there any value you think those merge commits would add?

In my opinion, this is just what we get to live with because we use git.
The added value is you get to use git without having to rebase
a set of local commits before doing your push.  I haven't rebased recently,
so if it has changed, this might not be as bad as I remember.   In the past,
I had to redo a series of commits while rebasing.   Instead of a single operation, 
a merge, I had to redo all the commits I had done locally and had not
pushed yet.   I consider that wasted time redoing all those commits.

--Phil