On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 1:43 PM, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > Robert Haas wrote: >> git IS a stable archive of what the patches really were. > > No. A developer can delete, move and rebase branches in his own repository > as he likes, and all of those operations "modify history". In fact, a > developer can completely destroy or take offline his published repository. > It's *not* an archive. > > There's other reasons why I like git very much over cvs, but archiving is > not one of them.
s/IS/CAN BE/, then. CVS history can be rewritten, too; it's just harder. We can make a policy that branches once pushed to git.postgresql.org are not to be rebased; that's recommended practice with git anyway. I'm not sure off the top of my head how hard it would be to enforce this in code; you'd just need to enforce that 'git push' only ever did a fast-forward. ...Robert -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
