Re: Rollback of git commands

> On Wed, 28 Nov 2007, Jon Smirl wrote:
>
> > On 11/28/07, Nicolas Pitre <nico@cam.org> wrote:
> > > On Wed, 28 Nov 2007, Jon Smirl wrote:
> > >
> > > > On 11/28/07, Nicolas Pitre <nico@cam.org> wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, 27 Nov 2007, Jon Smirl wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Of course you've never screwed up a repository using git commands,
> > > > > > right? I've messed up plenty. A good way to mess up a repo is to get
> > > > > > the data in .git/* out of sync with what is in the repo. I'm getting
> > > > > > good enough with git that I can fix most mess up with a few edits, but
> > > > > > it took me two years to get to that point. Rolling back to a check
> > > > > > point is way easier. User error and a command failing are both equally
> > > > > > valid ways to mess up a repo.
> > > > >
> > > > > The reflog contains all your check points, for every modifications you
> > > > > make, even the stupid ones.  You should look at it.
> > > >
> > > > The state contained in the other config files in .git/* is not getting
> > > > check pointed. I can use reflog to move my branch heads around. But
> > > > doing that does not undo the changes to the state recorded in .git/*.
> > > > After the error I encountered  I moved my branch head back, but the
> > > > state stgit had stored in .git/* was out of sync with where the branch
> > > > had been moved to.
> > >
> > > It's up to stgit to version control its state then.  It may even use a
> > > reflog for it.  All the machinery is there already.
> >
> > Git has state in .git/* too, shouldn't it be version controlling it
> > too? If git was version controlling the state in .git/* you'd have
> > checkpoints with the ability to roll back.
>
> Well, the .git directory contains data to identify what is actually
> version controlled.  If you start versioning the data used to implement
> the versioning, don't you get into endless recursion here?