On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 07:35:03PM +0200, Benny Halevy wrote:The SHA1 is uniquely determined by the contents of that commit--commit and author names and times, changelog message, snapshot of the tree at that point, and parents--hence, recursively, by the entire history leading up to that commit. Naming objects by their content in that way has a lot of advantages--for example, you can sign an entire history by signing just the SHA1 of the commit at its tip. So you can't break that link between the names of commits and their contents without ending up with a fundamentally different (and probably weaker, in some sense), system. I suspect there's an unavoidable tradeoff--if you want to be able to reliably and efficiently determine how two branches are related, then you can't just throw away their (possibly messy) history. The best you may be able to do, if you want the advantages of both rebasing and merging, is to maintain on your own the messier meta-history as a superset of the simpler history that you end up submitting. --b. --
| Joe Perches | [PATCH 143/148] include/asm-x86/vm86.h: checkpatch cleanups - formatting only |
| Linus Torvalds | Re: Back to the future. |
| Greg Kroah-Hartman | [PATCH 004/196] Chinese: add translation of SubmittingPatches |
| Trent Piepho | [PATCH] [POWERPC] Improve (in|out)_beXX() asm code |
git: | |
| David Miller | Re: [PATCH] pkt_sched: Destroy gen estimators under rtnl_lock(). |
| Gerrit Renker | [PATCH 15/37] dccp: Set per-connection CCIDs via socket options |
| David Miller | [GIT]: Networking |
| Linus Torvalds | Re: iptables very slow after commit 784544739a25c30637397ace5489eeb6e15d7d49 |
