tech-kern archive
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: Slightly off topic, question about git
> I've recently come to realize a thing with git I really abhor. It
> has a very loose view on history immutability. I've seen branches,
> which claims to come from some point, where the branch is way older
> than the revision it claims to have been branched off. Which
> obviously is impossible. But history rewriting seems to be a
> favorite pastime of git users.
That's not a fault of git; that's a fault of how some people use git.
I recently had occasion to go through and expunge certain content from
a (git) repo. It was neither convenient, simple, nor fast, even though
the content in question consisted of two files whose names remained
constant throughout their history.
> For me, one of the really big points of VCS is that history is never
> changed. I can go back and see what was done, where, to what.
And git can be used that way. No VCS is ever truly never-change,
unless you use write-once media to store it, and even then it is always
vulnerable to reconstructing a new repo from the ground up based on the
old repo.
> Since git actually is multiple, independent VCSs, what happens on one
> don't necessarily at all come across to another, and in the process
> of aligning them, history have to be rewritten to even get close to
> make some kind of sense.
Not really; history doesn't _have_ to be rewritten. That's what merge
commits are for. People just choose to rebase work instead of merging.
(Personally, I think that's a mistake, for various reasons, but, as you
point not, not everyone agrees.)
/~\ The ASCII Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
X Against HTML mouse%rodents-montreal.org@localhost
/ \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B
Home |
Main Index |
Thread Index |
Old Index