On 1/13/23 17:02, Konstantin Ryabitsev wrote:
On Fri, Jan 13, 2023 at 04:54:39PM +0100, Hans Petter Selasky wrote:
On 1/13/23 16:45, Konstantin Ryabitsev wrote:
If, for some reason, Linus ever needs to remove something
from linux.git, he will do it and just give a heads-up why and for what
reason.
This gotta be a joke.
There are 46K forks of Linus Torvalds Linux kernel on GitHUB, and if Linus
Torvalds one day decides to do a forced push, it will for sure be a
disaster!
No it won't, and I speak from some position of authority on this subject (I'm
responsible for git.kernel.org).
If Linus has to alter the history of linux.git, it will for sure be an
extraordinary event -- it's never happened yet. However, it will be widely
publicised, the reasons for it will be made clear, and everyone will just
accept it and move on.
Git history edits occur all the time. Most tooling expects this to
occasionally happen and deals with it correctly.
OK, if you say so. Though in my mind 46K rebases of millions of commits
seem a lot overhead.
However, if history can be edited anyway, why do you need the
cryptographic hash algorithm. Why not use a non-cryptographic one?
What's the point? Only so that one party can stay in control?
--HPS
