Re: why is git destructive by default? (i suggest it not be!)
- From
- Lea Wiemann <lewiemann@gmail.com>
- Date
- Jun 24, 2008, 08:14 UTC
- Message-ID
- <4860ACC9.3050407@gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <willow-jeske-01l5e9cgFEDjCh3F>
David Jeske wrote:
> ... or we expect "human parsing of the the log" is a valid common > user-interface for non-git developers.
As a side note, the reflog is not only a valid user interface, but an important one: As a local developer that feeds patches to the mailing list, I frequently change the history in my local repository (using rebase, reset and am, or pull --rebase) to keep the commits clean when they finally get merged upstream. I *want* and *need* at least basic versioning for the various states my history is in.
IOW, I not only make changes to the tree and commit them to my master branch, but I also make changes to my master branch and "commit" them to (store them in) the reflog.
That's not an interesting use case if you're working on a branch that other people pull from, but for a local clone it's very useful. (And it's a feature I haven't seen in any VCSes, FWIW.)
Best,
Lea