In message 20080710002148.GD4657@prithivi.gnumonks.org you wrote:
can do, even though I believe it is by far not the best tool to do so.
The definition of "the best tool" depends on many things, including previous experience and personal preferences.
The problem is that I would have to use one local branch per feature (i.e. lots of local branches that need to be kept in sync), and even then any incremental changes/fixes to one particular feature are visible in the commitlog (and thus result in changelog pollution).
Having many local branches is no problem with git.
Git provides excellent help to rebase such branches, and using "--interactive" gives you a lot of options to edit the history.
So is this really the preferred workflow? How are others dealing with this? How to avoid commitlog pollution?
I started using "git-rebase -i", and so far it seems to work fine for me. But I'm definitely not an expert.
Best regards,
Wolfgang Denk