From: Kelly Dean <kellydeanch@yahoo.com>
Date: Mon, 07 May 2012 23:13:37 GMT
Subject: Re: Does content provenance matter?
Message-ID: <1336432417.36394.YahooMailClassic@web121504.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAJsNXT=26u-PPNe9_LFoC1tAKpWJRWfBNNKzQB5Ya3X0n4K_eg@mail.gmail.com>

--- On Mon, 5/7/12, PJ Weisberg <pj@irregularexpressions.net> wrote:
> But there could be any number of unrelated commits newer than "Bar"
> but older than "Revert Bar" on other branches.  Even if you could
> trust the timestamps to be accurate (you can't), you still can't
> determine a commit's parent unambiguously.
Therefore, provenance does matter, and it must be explicitly recorded because it can't necessarily be correctly and fully deduced from content alone. And git does record inter-commit provenance.
However, git doesn't record intra-commit provenance, as I mentioned in my original message. My question is: why this discrepancy? Either provenance matters, or it doesn't; why record it in one case but not the other?