Re: Hey - A Conceptual Simplication....

> On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 09:03:31PM -0500, George Dennie wrote:
>>
>> For example, the functional notion of the repository seems well
>> defined: a growing web of immutable commits each created as either an
>> isolated commit or more typically an update and/or merger of one or
>> more pre-existing commits.
>
> In Git, commits are not immutable. One thing that many Git users do
> is git-rebase, which in essense is re-writing or re-ordering exising
> commits. So, you can change history in Git, but you should never change
> the published history. (Of course, that leads to the question what is
> considered as published history. For instance, commits merged on the
> proposed-updates branch are usually not considered to be "published",
> so they can be re-written or discarded later).
>
> So, the correct way to use Git is to find the right balance between
> the need to clean up after mistakes (using git-rebase) and not doing
> too much, so you will not lose important history or create problems
> for other peoples.

>>
>> The notion of a shapeless commit is curious. Intuitively, I consider a
>> commit as capturing the state of my work at a transactional boundary
>> (i.e. a successful unit test...or even lunch break).
>
> No, it is not what Git commits were intended for. In Git, a commit is
> a change intended to achieve some goal. Basically, you send a patch
> to maintainer, and you should explain what this patch does and why it
> is useful... If your explanation is "I have a lunch break now", it is
> very bad explanation, thus a bad patch.
>
>
> Dmitry
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>