> Who wants to record typos or patch after patch in your private branch? That has absolutely no value.
A couple of years ago I wrote most of a custom X509 validation stack in java before realising we didn't need one after all, there was a way to do what we needed with the standard stuff, so it wasn't in the final PR. Three months later things changed, I did need one and being able to look it up saved me several days work.
It can have a huge amount of value.
Who cares about revision history being neat and atomic? It's not been of the slightest consequence to me. It's not like there's a realistic maximum number of revisions you can store in your repo.
But to the original point, clearly both of these features have a use-case, and people want them. Other source control systems in the past (which were much worse in many other ways) catered for this. But the current tension only exists because the dominant source control system doesn't really allow you to pick and choose how you see the data.
A couple of years ago I wrote most of a custom X509 validation stack in java before realising we didn't need one after all, there was a way to do what we needed with the standard stuff, so it wasn't in the final PR. Three months later things changed, I did need one and being able to look it up saved me several days work.
It can have a huge amount of value.
Who cares about revision history being neat and atomic? It's not been of the slightest consequence to me. It's not like there's a realistic maximum number of revisions you can store in your repo.
But to the original point, clearly both of these features have a use-case, and people want them. Other source control systems in the past (which were much worse in many other ways) catered for this. But the current tension only exists because the dominant source control system doesn't really allow you to pick and choose how you see the data.
(Unless it does, see other thread)