|
|
|
|
|
|
by funklute
979 days ago
|
|
|
> then git gives you the tools to ensure the repos you control are not rewritten I might betray my ignorance here, but what tools are those? If I host a git repo, then I can obviously ensure that any branches on the origin are never rewritten. But how can I ensure that people who submit pull requests have not rewritten their history? |
|
|
That is all I meant. As you say, people can still rewrite their own history on their own computer before submitting it.
We could get philosophical about what "history" is. If I press backspace am I rewriting history? What granularity are we talking here? If I make change X by frequently committing and then squash, have I rewritten history? If I make the exact same change X with one big commit at the end (no squashing), have I not rewritten history? Whether or not I rewrote history the pull request at the end is the same. Or what if I'm using jj which amends a "working commit" hundreds of times, have I rewritten history?
Ultimately the division of changes into commits is a matter of authorship, a creative endeavor. I'd prefer to do this creative work with whatever tools I choose, but if you force me to never squash, I can still achieve the same creative output using other tools or by altering how I work. At no point were commits ever an actual history, they were always a presentation of the history the author chose to present.
(I've rambled on here, most of this isn't meant as a direct reply to you.)