From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: David Kastrup Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Referring to revisions in the git future Date: Sat, 01 Nov 2014 08:58:37 +0100 Organization: Organization?!? Message-ID: <87fve34aj6.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> References: <20141029004942.GA25241@thyrsus.com> <20141029105202.249acb5a@anarchist.wooz.org> <87bnouapiy.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <20141029150600.GA5701@thyrsus.com> <20141029141216.7abbbc0d@anarchist.wooz.org> <20141029222946.GA13673@thyrsus.com> <545178BE.2050505@cs.ucla.edu> <87k33i9fgi.fsf_-_@violet.siamics.net> <20141030083156.GA2683@thyrsus.com> <8738a4ro11.fsf@yahoo.fr> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1414828763 29131 80.91.229.3 (1 Nov 2014 07:59:23 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 1 Nov 2014 07:59:23 +0000 (UTC) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Nov 01 08:59:16 2014 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1XkTad-0001cK-QX for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 01 Nov 2014 08:59:15 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:45616 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XkTad-0000yu-Ai for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 01 Nov 2014 03:59:15 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:40627) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XkTaK-0000ya-IH for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 01 Nov 2014 03:59:02 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XkTaE-0001p9-Iz for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 01 Nov 2014 03:58:56 -0400 Original-Received: from plane.gmane.org ([80.91.229.3]:58737) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XkTaE-0001no-C5 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 01 Nov 2014 03:58:50 -0400 Original-Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1XkTaC-0001Tm-E0 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 01 Nov 2014 08:58:48 +0100 Original-Received: from x2f42ab0.dyn.telefonica.de ([2.244.42.176]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sat, 01 Nov 2014 08:58:48 +0100 Original-Received: from dak by x2f42ab0.dyn.telefonica.de with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sat, 01 Nov 2014 08:58:48 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Original-Lines: 26 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: x2f42ab0.dyn.telefonica.de X-Face: 2FEFf>]>q>2iw=B6, xrUubRI>pR&Ml9=ao@P@i)L:\urd*t9M~y1^:+Y]'C0~{mAl`oQuAl \!3KEIp?*w`|bL5qr,H)LFO6Q=qx~iH4DN; i"; /yuIsqbLLCh/!U#X[S~(5eZ41to5f%E@'ELIi$t^ Vc\LWP@J5p^rst0+('>Er0=^1{]M9!p?&:\z]|;&=NP3AhB!B_bi^]Pfkw User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:RyaJYDVJjkx8GdznX5hKVEv+V3s= X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-Received-From: 80.91.229.3 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:176193 Archived-At: Stefan Monnier writes: >>> There's no reason why the commit message would need to be considered as >>> being part of the "immutable history". IOW there's no technical reason >>> to include the commit message in the Git hash. >> git has a separate hash for the tree. "git cat-file commit >> " will show you that. > > I know, but the "parents" reference a "commit", not a "tree". I see the danger of companies or people having fun obfuscating/stripping repositories where there are only isolated root commits without DAG. Those are not helpful for development. One idea of Git was to have verifiable records, also with regard to attributions. Being able to silently render parts of history useless for work, possibly having it spread out through push/pop eventually, is not really a comforting idea. For that reason, I think that the current scheme is not the worst idea. One can add "notes" after the fact, and it is conceivable to create notes that are used for patching typos when creating a ChangeLog automatically if it is really important to someone. But I consider it reasonable that the default records are indelible. -- David Kastrup