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.
...Robert