Subject: Re: [boost] [git] neglected aspects
From: Julien Nitard (julien.nitard_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-02-12 02:14:26
> isn't this scenario a somewhat basic feature of a version control system ?
> doesn't every SCM support that ?
Yes it is, but there were some misunderstandings that needed clarification.
> the designers of svn would have done well to declare the repo history as
> immutable - what goes in stays in. if you need to change it, commit a new
> revision. don't alter history, don't modify the past.
> i had a developer run a script that was supposed to 'fix a few things' in the
> repo history. seemed to work ok on his test repo, but truncated commit
> messages in the production repo and shifted them by a few commits. this
> effectively rendered the repo useless.
Now I guess you've heard of backups, that's what they re supposed to
protect from. Note that hooks are an entirely optional feature managed
by the admin, not the developers.
> the canonical way how this is handled in git is to submit a new revision that
> fixes the mistakes in the past. you can modify the history in git, but this will
> hickup once you push them upstream, so you will do this only once:
This is a fair point in favor of git, but I am not sure this is a
compelling reason to switch by itself.