On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 02:36:08PM -0500, Robert Haas wrote: > 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.
We could do this using git's configuration: http://www.kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-config.html See receive.denyNonFastForwards, which is built for just this purpose :) Cheers, David. -- David Fetter <da...@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/ Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david.fet...@gmail.com Remember to vote! Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
