On 24.11.2015 05:53, Branko Čibej wrote: > Instead of complaining to me, it'd be far more useful to work with those > other PMCs to produce a set of rules for using Git -- *not* a single > blessed workflow -- that prevent losing important information about the > code base. Ideally, the rules would be easily implemented as checks in > Git hooks. The idea being to prevent mistakes, not to constrain developers.
On the topic of hooks: Subversion allows changes to revision properties (not by default of course) that would be quite inappropriate; for example, you could, theoretically, change the name of the author of a commit. At the ASF we have a specific hook to allow changing log messages, but none of the other revision properties; and the commit mailer sends diffs of changed log messages to the project's mailing list. This is an example of the sort of rule I'm talking about: it does not impose any particular workflow; it allows changing log messages and provides a permanent audit trail (in list archives); it does not allow changing commit date, author, etc., because those would be obvious mistakes. (And FWIW: Yes, Subversion has a design bug in not maintaining an archive of previous values of revision properties to provide that audit trail.) -- Brane
