Re: cvs better than git?

[Andreas Krey <a.krey%gmx.de@localhost>]

On Sun, 21 Jun 2020 17:59:59 +0000, Johnny Billquist wrote:
...
> >You're a bit hung up on the word 'commit', and the finality of commits
> >in some VCSes, it seems.
> 
> So are obviously everyone using git in combination with gerrit...

What? The gerrit model is exactly that: Make commits to be reviewed,
rewrite commits according to review feedback until everyone is satisfied;
then merge in those commits.

If you call the entire process of accepting (after finished reviewe)
the final commit set, and integrating and publishing them 'committing'
you'll find yourself in some trouble discussing with other people.

> You could also argue that the whole point of a VCS is that once it's in 
> there, it's immutable, available to everyone,

The point of a VCS is to record history - the history you (collectively)
decide to be recorded. See the discussion about 'svn obliterate'; see
discussions on how to remove accidentally committed secrets from git
repos.

git takes the stance that, since you can just fake the entire history
(as you can, if not with, then for svn), it also lets you modify history
more granularly, and gives you tools to keep parts of the history fixed -
those parts that you decide should be fixed and permanent.

- Andreas

-- 
"Totally trivial. Famous last words."
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@*.org>
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 07:29:21 -0800