Eli Barzilay <e...@barzilay.org> writes: > On May 17, Michael Sperber wrote: >> Eli Barzilay <e...@barzilay.org> writes: >> >> > On May 17, Michael Sperber wrote: >> >> Eli Barzilay <e...@barzilay.org> writes: >> >> >> >> > You mean that Sam will have his own repository with a different >> >> > history where my five commits are squashed into one, and his >> >> > own commits are present in more detail (which involve him doing >> >> > the 86 commits as usual, then writing a new total commit log >> >> > message that would be present in the public repository but not >> >> > in his oen)? >> >> >> >> Essentially: However, it won't be different in git's identity >> >> sense of the word - it will have additional stuff in it, namely >> >> the 86 individual commits that the rest of us shouldn't be >> >> looking it. And that new total commit message would actually >> >> worthwhile, because we'd see the big picture instead of the >> >> itty-bitty details that matter only to Sam. >> >> >> >> > If so, then I think that you have some misunderstanding of how >> >> > git works. >> >> >> >> This is not a question of how git works, it's a question of >> >> organizing your workflow. git is perfectly able to handle this >> >> workflow. >> > >> > I have no idea what you're talking about here. For the history to >> > be the same in git's identity's sense, it must be exactly the same >> > history on both repositories -- either all of them present in >> > both, or the overall single one in both. >> >> Let me re-phrase: The revision graph in the central repository will >> be a subgraph of the revision graph in Sam's repository. All the >> patches of the central repository will be in Sam's repository, and >> they will have the identity (i.e. same hash) there. > > Git doesn't keep a history of sha1-ed patches -- it's a history of > commits, each pointing to a tree and a parent commit(s). If we both > have the same <sha1>, then `git log <sha1>' in both of our repository > is guaranteed to be exactly the same graph, same author, dates, and > log messages -- they're all part of the resulting hash.
Right. So? Sam's repository has more <sha1>s than the central repository. This situation comes up not only in the workflow I described, but every time Sam pulls from the central repository when he still has unpushed changes in his own repository. (Sorry, Sam, to be on your case all the time ...) -- Cheers =8-} Mike Friede, Völkerverständigung und überhaupt blabla _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://list.cs.brown.edu/mailman/listinfo/plt-dev
