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. --
| Heiko Carstens | Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.23 -- sys_fallocate |
| david | Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 |
| Greg KH | [GIT PATCH] driver core patches against 2.6.24 |
| Bart Van Assche | Re: Integration of SCST in the mainstream Linux kernel |
git: | |
| Gerrit Renker | [PATCH 27/37] dccp: Integration of dynamic feature activation - part 2 (server side) |
| David Miller | [GIT]: Networking |
| Badalian Vyacheslav | e1000: Question about polling |
| David Miller | Re: [PATCH] pkt_sched: Destroy gen estimators under rtnl_lock(). |
