Fossil deliberately omits a "rebase" command because the original designer of Fossil (and original author of this article) considers rebase to be an anti-pattern to be avoided. This article attempts to explain that point of view.
1.0 Rebasing is dangerous
Most people, even strident advocates of rebase, agree that rebase can cause problems when misused. The Git rebase documentation talks about the golden rule of rebasing: never rebase on a public branch. Horror stories of misused rebase abound, and the rebase documentation devotes considerable space toward explaining how to recover from rebase errors and/or misuse.
Sometimes sharp and dangerous tools are justified, because they accomplish things that cannot be done otherwise, or at least cannot be done easily. Rebase does not fall into that category, because it provides no new capabilities.
A rebase is really nothing more than a merge (or a series of merges) that deliberately forgets one of the parents of each merge step. To help illustrate this fact, consider the first rebase example from the Git documentation. The merge looks like this:
And the rebase looks like this:
As the Git documentation points out, check-ins C4' and C5 are identical. The only difference between C4' and C5 is that C5 records the fact that C4 is its merge parent but C4' does not.
Thus, a rebase is just a merge that forgets where it came from.
The Git documentation acknowledges this fact (in so many words) and justifies it by saying "rebasing makes for a cleaner history." I read that sentence as a tacit admission that the Git history display capabilities are weak and need active assistance from the user to keep things manageable. Surely a better approach is to record the complete ancestry of every check-in but then fix the tool to show a "clean" history in those instances where a simplified display is desirable and edifying, but retain the option to show the real, complete, messy history for cases where detail and accuracy are more important.
So, another way of thinking about rebase is that it is a kind of merge that intentionally forgets some details in order to not overwhelm the weak history display mechanisms available in Git. Wouldn't it be better, less error-prone, and easier on users to enhance the history display mechanisms in Git so that rebasing for a clean, linear history became unnecessary?
Another argument, often cited, is that rebasing a feature branch allows one to see just the changes in the feature branch without the concurrent changes in the main line of development. Consider a hypothetical case:
In the above, a feature branch consisting of check-ins C3 and C5 is run concurrently with the main line in check-ins C4 and C6. Advocates for rebase say that you should rebase the feature branch to the tip of main in order to remove main-line development differences from the feature branch's history:
You could choose to collapse C3' and C5' into a single check-in as part of this rebase, but that's a side issue we'll deal with separately.
Because Fossil purposefully lacks rebase, the closest you can get to this same check-in history is the following merge:
Check-ins C5' and C7 check-ins hold identical code. The only difference is in their history.
The argument from rebase advocates is that with merge it is difficult to see only the changes associated with the feature branch without the commingled mainline changes. In other words, diff(C2,C7) shows changes from both the feature branch and from the mainline, whereas in the rebase case diff(C6,C5') shows only the feature branch changes.
But that argument is comparing apples to oranges, since the two diffs do not have the same baseline. The correct way to see only the feature branch changes in the merge case is not diff(C2,C7) but rather diff(C6,C7).
|Rebase||Merge||What You See|
|diff(C2,C5')||diff(C2,C7)||Commingled branch and mainline changes|
|diff(C6,C5')||diff(C6,C7)||Branch changes only|
Remember: C7 and C5' are bit-for-bit identical, so the output of the diff is not determined by whether you select C7 or C5' as the target of the diff, but rather by your choice of the diff source, C2 or C6.
So, to help with the problem of viewing changes associated with a feature branch, perhaps what is needed is not rebase but rather better tools to help users identify an appropriate baseline for their diffs.
The golden rule of rebasing is that you should never do it on public branches, so if you are using rebase as intended, that means you are keeping private branches. Or, to put it another way, you are doing siloed development. You are not sharing your intermediate work with collaborators. This is not good for product quality.
Nagappan, et. al studied bugs in Windows Vista and found that best predictor of bugs is the distance on the org-chart between the stake-holders. The bug rate is inversely related to the amount of communication among the engineers. Similar findings arise in other disciplines. Keeping private branches does not prove that developers are communicating insufficiently, but it is a key symptom that problem.
Weinberg argues programming should be "egoless." That is to say, programmers should avoid linking their code with their sense of self, as that makes it more difficult for them to find and respond to bugs, and hence makes them less productive. Many developers are drawn to private branches out of sense of ego. "I want to get the code right before I publish it." I sympathize with this sentiment, and am frequently guilty of it myself. It is humbling to display your stupid mistake to the whole world on an Internet that never forgets. And yet, humble programmers generate better code.
What is the fastest path to solid code? Is it to continue staring at your private branch to seek out every last bug, or is it to publish it as-is, whereupon the many eyeballs will immediately see that last stupid error in the code? Testing and development are often done by separate groups within a larger software development organization, because developers get too close to their own code to see every problem in it.
Given that, is it better for those many eyeballs to find your problems while they're still isolated on a feature branch, or should that vetting wait until you finally push a collapsed version of a private working branch to the parent repo? Will the many eyeballs even see those errors when they’re intermingled with code implementing some compelling new feature?
Rebase adds new check-ins to the blockchain without giving the operator an opportunity to test and verify those check-ins. Just because the underlying three-way merge had no conflict does not mean that the resulting code actually works. Thus, rebase runs the very real risk of adding non-functional check-ins to the permanent record.
Of course, a user can also commit untested or broken check-ins without the help of rebase. But at least with an ordinary commit or merge (in Fossil at least), the operator has the opportunity to test and verify the merge before it is committed, and a chance to back out or fix the change if it is broken without leaving busted check-ins on the blockchain to complicate future bisects.
With rebase, pre-commit testing is not an option.
Consider the earlier example of rebasing a feature branch:
What timestamps go on the C3' and C5' check-ins? If you choose the same timestamps as the original C3 and C5, then you have the odd situation C3' is older than its parent C6. We call that a "timewarp" in Fossil. Timewarps can also happen due to misconfigured system clocks, so they are not unique to rebase, but they are very confusing and so best avoided. The other option is to provide new unique timestamps for C3' and C5' but then you lose the information about when those check-ins were originally created, which can make historical analysis of changes more difficult. It might also complicate the legal defense of prior art claims.
By discarding parentage information, rebase attempts to deceive the reader about how the code actually came together.
The Git rebase documentation admits as much. They acknowledge that when you view a repository as record of what actually happened, doing a rebase is "blasphemous" and "you're lying about what actually happened", but then goes on to justify rebase as follows:
"The opposing point of view is that the commit history is the story of how your project was made. You wouldn't publish the first draft of a book, and the manual for how to maintain your software deserves careful editing. This is the camp that uses tools like rebase and filter-branch to tell the story in the way that's best for future readers."
This counter-argument assumes you must change history in order to enhance readability, which is not true.
In fairness to the Git documentation authors, changing the project history appears to be the only way to make editorial changes in Git. But it does not have to be that way. Fossil demonstrates how "the story of your project" can be enhanced without changing the actual history by allowing users to:
- Edit check-in comments to fix typos or enhance clarity
- Attach supplemental notes to check-ins or whole branches
- Cross-reference check-ins with each other, or with wiki, tickets, forum posts, and/or embedded documentation
- Cause mistaken or unused branches to be hidden from routine display
- Fix faulty check-in date/times resulting from misconfigured system clocks
- And so forth....
These changes are accomplished not by removing or modifying existing repository entries, but rather by adding new supplemental records. The original incorrect or unclear inputs are preserved and are readily accessible. The original history is preserved. But for routine display purposes, the more readable edited presentation is provided.
A repository can be a true and accurate representation of history even without getting everything perfect on the first draft. Those are not contradictory goals, at least not in theory.
Unfortunately, Git does not currently provide the ability to add corrections or clarifications or supplimental notes to historical check-ins. Hence, once again, rebase can be seen as an attempt to work around limitations of Git. Git could be enhanced to support editorial changes to check-ins. Wouldn't it be better to fix the version control tool rather than requiring users to fabricate a fictitious project history?
One of the oft-cited advantages of rebasing in Git is that it lets you collapse multiple check-ins down to a single check-in to make the development history “clean.” The intent is that development appear as though every feature were created in a single step: no multi-step evolution, no back-tracking, no false starts, no mistakes. This ignores actual developer psychology: ideas rarely spring forth from fingers to files in faultless finished form. A wish for collapsed, finalized check-ins is a wish for a counterfactual situation.
The common counterargument is that collapsed check-ins represent a better world, the ideal we're striving for. What that argument overlooks is that we must throw away valuable information to get there.
Ideally, future developers of our software can understand every feature in it using only context available in the version of the code they start work with. Prior to widespread version control, developers had no choice but to work that way. Pre-existing codebases could only be understood as-is or not at all. Developers in that world had an incentive to develop software that was easy to understand retrospectively, even if they were selfish people, because they knew they might end up being those future developers!
Yet, sometimes we come upon a piece of code that we simply cannot understand. If you have never asked yourself, "What was this code's developer thinking?" you haven't been developing software for very long.
When a developer can go back to the individual check-ins leading up to the current code, they can work out the answers to such questions using only the level of empathy necessary to be a good developer. To understand such code using only the finished form, you are asking future developers to make intuitive leaps that the original developer was unable to make. In other words, you are asking your future maintenance developers to be smarter than the original developers! That's a beautiful wish, but there's a sharp limit to how far you can carry it. Eventually you hit the limits of human brilliance.
When the operation of some bit of code is not obvious, both Fossil and
Git let you run a
blame on the code file to get
information about each line of code, and from that which check-in last
touched a given line of code. If you squash the check-ins on a branch
down to a single check-in, you throw away the information leading up to
that finished form. Fossil not only preserves the check-ins surrounding
the one that included the line of code you're trying to understand, its
superior data model lets you see the surrounding check-ins in
both directions; not only what lead up to it, but what came next. Git
can't do that short of crawling the block-chain backwards from the tip
of the branch to the check-in you’re looking at, an expensive operation.
We believe it is easier to understand a line of code from the 10-line check-in it was a part of — and then to understand the surrounding check-ins as necessary — than it is to understand a 500-line check-in that collapses a whole branch's worth of changes down to a single finished feature.
Git lets a developer write a feature in ten check-ins but collapse it down to an eleventh check-in and then deliberately push only that final collapsed check-in to the parent repo. Someone else may then do a bisect that blames the merged check-in as the source of the problem they’re chasing down; they then have to manually work out which of the 10 steps the original developer took to create it to find the source of the actual problem.
Fossil pushes all 11 check-ins to the parent repository by default, so that someone doing that bisect sees the complete check-in history, so the bisect will point them at the single original check-in that caused the problem.
The more comments you have from a given developer on a given body of code, the more concise documentation you have of that developer's thought process. To resume the bisecting example, a developer trying to work out what the original developer was thinking with a given change will have more success given a check-in comment that explains what the one check-in out of ten blamed by the "bisect" command was trying to accomplish than if they must work that out from the eleventh check-in's comment, which only explains the "clean" version of the collapsed feature.
While working on a new feature in one branch, you may come across a bug in the pre-existing code that you need to fix in order for work on that feature to proceed. You could choose to switch briefly back to the parent branch, develop the fix there, check it in, then merge the parent back up to the feature branch in order to continue work, but that's distracting. If the fix isn't for a critical bug, fixing it on the parent branch can wait, so it's better to maintain your mental working state by fixing the problem in place on the feature branch, then check the fix in on the feature branch, resume work on the feature, and later merge that fix down into the parent branch along with the feature.
But now what happens if another branch also needs that fix? Let us say our code repository has a branch for the current stable release, a development branch for the next major version, and feature branches off of the development branch. If we rebase each feature branch down into the development branch as a single check-in, pushing only the rebase check-in up to the parent repo, only that fix's developer has the information locally to perform the cherry-pick of the fix onto the stable branch.
Developers working on new features often do not care about old stable versions, yet that stable version may have an end user community that depends on that version, who either cannot wait for the next stable version or who wish to put off upgrading to it for some time. Such users want backported bug fixes, yet the developers creating those fixes have poor incentives to provide those backports. Thus the existence of maintenance and support organizations, who end up doing such work. (There is a famous company that built a multi-billion dollar enterprise on such work.)
This work is far easier when each cherry-pick transfers completely and cleanly from one branch to another, and we increase the likelihood of achieving that state by working from the smallest check-ins that remain complete. If a support organization must manually disentangle a fix from a feature check-in, they are likely to introduce new bugs on the stable branch. Even if they manage to do their work without error, it takes them more time to do the cherry-pick that way.
The inverse of the cherry-pick merge is the back-out merge. If you push only a collapsed version of a private working branch up to the parent repo, those working from that parent repo cannot automatically back out any of the individual check-ins that went into that private branch. Others must either manually disentangle the problematic part of your merge check-in or back out the entire feature.
Perhaps there are some cases where a rebase-like transformation is actually helpful, but those cases are rare, and when they do come up, running a series of cherry-pick merges achieves the same topology with several advantages:
Cherry-pick merges preserve an honest record of history. (They do in Fossil at least. Git's file format does not have a slot to record cherry-pick merge history, unfortunately.)
Cherry-picks provide an opportunity to test each new check-in before it is committed to the blockchain
Cherry-pick merges are "safe" in the sense that they do not cause problems for collaborators if you do them on public branches.
Cherry-picks keep both the original and the revised check-ins, so both timestamps are preserved.
Rebasing is an anti-pattern. It is dishonest. It deliberately omits historical information. It causes problems for collaboration. And it has no offsetting benefits.
For these reasons, rebase is intentionally and deliberately omitted from the design of Fossil.