Re: Disallow amending published commits?

From: James Pickens <jepicken@gmail.com>
Date: Mar 22, 2009, 04:09 UTC
Message-ID: <885649360903212109v316f441fvea3f498e91c0059e@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <eaa105840903211853p65327ffdvebbe28da5f256871@mail.gmail.com>

On Sat, Mar 21, 2009, Peter Harris <git@peter.is-a-geek.org> wrote:

Show 16 quoted lines

> Okay. So in that workflow, you won't ever lose the original history.
>
> If someone creates an alternate history that differs only slightly,
> odds are your continuous integration server will get a merge conflict.
> Presumably it will reject the pull request at that point.
>
> If it doesn't conflict, you'll have both alternate histories. So
> nothing is lost.
>
> Maybe I'm misunderstanding the question? (That is definitely possible.
> The idea that a person would go to the effort of rewriting history -
> especially when that person knows the original history would stay put
> - often enough to cause problems is like suggesting that a person
> might write log messages in latin. I'm having a hard time envisioning
> the need to write down a social rule about it, much less the need to
> write an AI to try to detect it.)

I think you understood the question perfectly, and your comments all make sense. Perhaps I'm just being paranoid and this won't be a problem at all.

A bit of background might help explain my paranoia: I'm about to pilot Git on a fairly large project, where none of the users have Git experience, and many of them don't have much experience with any other version control system either. I had to fight hard to get this pilot approved, and a lot of people will be watching to see how it goes, so I'm trying to do anything I can to make sure it will be successful.

James