Hi, On Wed, 31 Oct 2007, Johan Herland wrote: > On Wednesday 31 October 2007, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > > > On Wed, 31 Oct 2007, Peter Karlsson wrote: > > > > > Johannes Schindelin: > > > > > > > Why should it? This would contradict the whole "a commit sha1 > > > > hashes the commit, and by inference the _whole_ history" > > > > principle. > > > > > > Does it? > > > > Yes! Of course! If what you want becomes possible, I could make an > > evil change in history long gone, and slip it by you. You could not > > even see the history which changed. > > Well, technically, if the grafts file was part of the repo, you wouldn't > be able to change the (in-tree) grafts file without affecting the SHA1 > of HEAD. In other words, given a commit SHA1 sum, you can be sure that > someone else who checks out the same commit (and has no local > modification to their grafts file) will see exactly the same history as > you do. All this does not change the fact that installing a graft and 'git gc --prune'ing gets rid of the old history. D'oh. Automatically installing grafts is wrong. Ciao, Dscho - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
