On May 17, Michael Sperber wrote:
> Eli Barzilay <e...@barzilay.org> writes:
>
> > But those commits are very important to me -- and the though of
> > considering preserving that history vs apologizing for 5 emails
> > instead of one seems like a very bad idea.
>
> The *e-mail* is the least problem in this case: Your five individual
> commits go on the permanent record.
Yes, and I *want* them to be on permanent record. Are you saying that
wanting them to be recorded is a (bigger?) problem?
> If I'm not mistaken, the "push history" isn't even preserved by git
> after the e-mail was sent - there's only the commit history. Right?
(Yes, and it is preserved by the script I have on the server. But all
of this is completely unrelated.)
> > I'm sure that those 86 commits are important for *Sam* -- but as
> > far as *I'm* concerned it's all a big blurry "stuff happened in
> > typed scheme"
>
> If they're truly only important to Sam, they should live in Sam's
> repository, not in everyone's. The whole point of a distributed SCM
> is that this kind of thing is actually manageable, and pretty easily
> so.
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)? If so,
then I think that you have some misunderstanding of how git works.
--
((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x))) Eli Barzilay:
http://barzilay.org/ Maze is Life!
_________________________________________________
For list-related administrative tasks:
http://list.cs.brown.edu/mailman/listinfo/plt-dev
