Re: why is git destructive by default? (i suggest it not be!)

From: Jakub Narebski <jnareb@gmail.com>
Date: Jun 24, 2008, 12:13 UTC
Message-ID: <200806241413.24111.jnareb@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <200806241322.14224.jnareb@gmail.com>

Jakub Narebski wrote:

> David Jeske wrote:

Show 10 quoted lines

> > Now, five years down the road, [...] someone does:
> > 
> >  $ git-branch -f customer_A_branch ZZZ
> 
> If they are using '-f', i.e. force, they should know and be sure what
> they are doing; it is not much different from 'rm -f *'.
> 
> If reflog for 'customer_A_branch' expired it would be hard to go back
> to old 'customer_A_branch', and impossible after garbage collector
> pruned history.

Actually it is not true. In the case of "git branch -f <branch>", which is the case which wouldn't be covered by protecting reflogs when deleting branches (saving them to some kind of "attic") git _saves_ old branch pointer to reflog, so "git log -g <branch>" would work as expected.

The reflog entry looks like the following:

   0c52414d... 80b4c7e5.. A U Thor <author@example.com> 1214306246 +0200 \
	branch: Reset from ZZZ

(where of course there are full SHA-1 of commits, instead of shortened
ones, and everything is in single line, without line continuation.)

Show 5 quoted lines

> What you _should do_, if you want to preserve old 'customer_A_branch'
> pointer is to *tag* it, e.g. something like 'Attic/customer_A_branch';
> if you use annotated tags you can even state why do you want to keep
> old work, and why old work wasn't merged into long-lived branch, and
> why the work was abandoned.

This of course is still valid.

-- 
Jakub Narebski
Poland