Donald Stufft <don...@stufft.io> writes: > It’s not lost, [… a long, presumably-accurate discourse of the many > conditions that must be met before …] you can restore it.
This isn't the place to discuss the details of Git's internals, I think. I'm merely pointing out that: > The important thing to realize is that a “branch” isn’t anything > special in git. Because of that, Ethan's impression – that Git's default behaviour encourages losing history (by re-writing the history of commits to be other than what they were) is true, and “Git never loses history” simply isn't true. Whether that is a *problem* is a matter of debate, but the fact that Git's common workflow commonly discards information that some consider valuable, is a simple fact. If Ethan chooses to make that a factor in his decisions about Git, the facts are on his side. -- \ “One of the most important things you learn from the internet | `\ is that there is no ‘them’ out there. It's just an awful lot of | _o__) ‘us’.” —Douglas Adams | Ben Finney _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
