On Sun, Nov 15, 2015 at 12:10 PM Joachim Durchholz
Am 15.11.2015 um 18:54 schrieb Mike Meyer:
You talked about issues during a code review. I've never seen a review process that was really affected by the source code control system.
If a history rewrite is tacked on at the end of a review process, that means another round of review. I agree that the SCM tool and the way it's being used wouldn't affect individual reviews, it's the overall process that can be affected (you could avoid that by doing the history rewrite as early as possible, preferrably before starting formal review if the project has that).
Um, I don't see how choice of a DVCS affects when you do history rewrites. Yes, the DVCS can make them harder if it doesn't support them, but that's case of picking a tool that doesn't support your workflow, which I think we all agree is a bad idea. And you saying history rewrites trigger another round of code reviews just reinforces my worries that such rewrites might be quietly introducing issues that need to be worried about, and hence the best way to avoid that extra round of reviews is to not do history rewrites. Like I said originally, this is a philosophy issue: do you believe the point of the code review is to preserve history as it actually happened, or as you wish it had happened? Your repository is yours, and I don't have issues with you using it for whatever you want to - you're a step ahead of a lot of places in that you have one at all! It's when you start wanting to change the way I use mine - by, for instance, asking me to edit it's history on a pull request instead of doing it when you merge the request - that I have issues.