On Sat, Nov 14, 2015 at 2:52 PM Joachim Durchholz <jo@durchholz.org> wrote:

Am 14.11.2015 um 21:10 schrieb Mike Meyer:
> Since we're talking about this, ones is the reasons I dislike for is that
> it treats the project history just like any other prolix public document,
> providing tools for modifying it, changing it as you push or pull, etc. I
> disagree with this, and prefer tools that believe that history should be
> immutable, like hg and fossil.
Just curious: Why?

Philosophical. I want history to reflect the way things actually happened.

So I think the difference is less relevant than most people think - but
then maybe I'm overlooking something, so what's your take?

I'm not convinced that a rebase in lieu of a merge doesn't hide where bugs are introduced. But that's minor to not wanting history hidden. I even had someone ask that I collapse a bunch of changes when I pushed them to my github repo before creating a PR. Not going to happen.