Your repo being eaten by some arcane git 'feature' that you had no idea even existed, and then when you ask for help you get a 50/50 split between "that shouldn't have happened" and "well of course, you have to run 'git --unfubar repo' every 431 checkins or it'll corrupt your repo, seriously who doesn't know that?"
That's hilarious given that Fossil was notorious for actually corrupting data, which is one of the few things people hardly ever bitch about with git. The fact that you are running into this frequently enough to rant about it suggests maybe you aren't familiar enough with the tool?
If a version control tool, when used correctly, ever barfs on your data, that's too frequently. And I wasn't praising Fossil, just raising my gripe with git.
I don't know if you're intentionally trolling, but I have been using version control for almost 20 years now and have never used the term check-in. All version control software that I've used in that time used the term commit.
Uh, where? I said "check in" is a generic term (which it is - it's listed as the first synonym for 'commit' here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Version_control#Common_vocabul... ). I never mentioned the term "commit" (which is obviously also a common term for the same action). Then you suggested I was trolling, for saying it was a generic term, which it is. Now you're putting words in my mouth and calling them nonsense.
> Or that I used the generic term rather than the git-specific term?
In the context of the discussion, generic term refers to "check in", and git-specific term refers to "commit" (which is the only possible alternative term to be using in that context). The obvious reading is that you're calling "commit" a git-specific term.
So I wouldn't say I'm putting words into your mouth, unless you were unaware that "commit" is the correct alternative term, which is of course a possibility that I didn't consider.
