Yes, thank you very much for your effort with this. The git repo is indeed nice for personal use to juggle with temporary branches and to dig around in all the history (I've been practicing a bit in the weekend).
Still, with git it appears to me that it would be more complicated to fix a problem in the history, since if a commit is split in two or something like that then it's unavoidable that the hashes for all later commits change, right? Then everyone synching against it would have to migrate their local branches to the new repo, and hashes posted in email messages etc would no longer be usable either. I'm only asking because I was curious about how important it is to get it right from the start. If it's that difficult in the git case I guess one would never bother to fix the problems after the repo is taken into active use. Come to think about it, problems would be similar for svn if the revision series change.
