Re: why is git destructive by default? (i suggest it not be!)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



David Jeske wrote:
... or we expect "human parsing of the the log" is a valid common
user-interface for non-git developers.

As a side note, the reflog is not only a valid user interface, but an important one: As a local developer that feeds patches to the mailing list, I frequently change the history in my local repository (using rebase, reset and am, or pull --rebase) to keep the commits clean when they finally get merged upstream. I *want* and *need* at least basic versioning for the various states my history is in.

IOW, I not only make changes to the tree and commit them to my master branch, but I also make changes to my master branch and "commit" them to (store them in) the reflog.

That's not an interesting use case if you're working on a branch that other people pull from, but for a local clone it's very useful. (And it's a feature I haven't seen in any VCSes, FWIW.)

Best,

    Lea
--
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

[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Gcc Help]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [V4L]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Fedora Users]

  Powered by Linux