On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 02:36:08PM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 1:43 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
> <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> > Robert Haas wrote:
> >> git IS a stable archive of what the patches really were.
> >
> > No. A developer can delete, move and rebase branches in his own
> > repository as he likes, and all of those operations "modify
> > history". In fact, a developer can completely destroy or take
> > offline his published repository. It's *not* an archive.
> >
> > There's other reasons why I like git very much over cvs, but
> > archiving is not one of them.
>
> s/IS/CAN BE/, then.
>
> CVS history can be rewritten, too; it's just harder. We can make a
> policy that branches once pushed to git.postgresql.org are not to be
> rebased; that's recommended practice with git anyway. I'm not sure
> off the top of my head how hard it would be to enforce this in code;
> you'd just need to enforce that 'git push' only ever did a
> fast-forward.
We could do this using git's configuration:
http://www.kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-config.html
See receive.denyNonFastForwards, which is built for just this purpose :)
Cheers,
David.
--
David Fetter <david@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter
Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david.fetter@gmail.com
Remember to vote!
Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate