No contention to the contrary, but as a routine, post-merge git history rewrite, not a grand plan, from what I understand.
Oh the other hand, an 'official' comment on the commit, recognising the issue with the original commit message, the following discussion, and any conclusions that get reached, might be better, in my opinion. I prefer to recognise and critique, rather than erase, 'historical' history, as a rule (as opposed to git history). I think similar damage is done in this case, when the record, and opportunity to point to and learn from it, is erased. David --------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2020 21:33:56 +0300 From: Ivan Pozdeev <v...@mail.mipt.ru> Subject: [Python-Dev] Re: Recent PEP-8 change (Antoine Pitrou) To: python-dev@python.org Message-ID: <e1d9900a-6dae-8bfc-ad0f-a1512cfa8...@mail.mipt.ru> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed On 02.07.2020 21:20, Chris Angelico wrote: > On Fri, Jul 3, 2020 at 4:09 AM David Mertz <me...@gnosis.cx> wrote: >>> An issue is that commit messages are uneditable after merge, so something >>> written somewhere suggesting consideration of this would be a good idea, >>> with authors/mergers bearing this in mind, however unusual a change on this >>> basis would be. This would be additional burden on the core dev team, but >>> if commitment is to be made to inclusivity, it might be what's necessary. >> >> I don't think so. >> https://docs.github.com/en/github/committing-changes-to-your-project/changing-a-commit-message. >> Interactive rebasing is perfectly possible, isn't it. I admit my git-fu >> isn't that strong, but I've done something that I *think* is the same as >> this. It's possible I'm missing some distinction between the trees I've >> modified and the current one, but I don't think so. >> > When you do that sort of rewriting, you're constructing a new and > independent history and then saying "hey, this is the history I want > everyone to respect now, thanks". It's full-on Back To The Future > stuff, and can have annoying or serious consequences with everyone who > has a clone or fork of the repo. > > It would be extremely annoying to anyone who has an open PR at the > time of the rewrite, but the annoyance would be temporary (hopefully > one-off). If you are talking about rewriting the PEP8 commit, it has proven to cause so much damage that this is warranted despite the inconveniences IMO. > ChrisA > _______________________________________________ > Python-Dev mailing list -- python-dev@python.org > To unsubscribe send an email to python-dev-le...@python.org > https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/ > Message archived at > https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-dev@python.org/message/A2XBFOH5WGEOASSXHHKRWEHMZBN625SU/ > Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/ > -- > Regards, > Ivan
_______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list -- python-dev@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-dev-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-dev@python.org/message/ZZKGBAROR7TR2M7TM4EYSIIHXTUBQB4Y/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
