On Sat, Mar 21, 2009, Peter Harris <git@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Okay. So in that workflow, you won't ever lose the original history. > > If someone creates an alternate history that differs only slightly, > odds are your continuous integration server will get a merge conflict. > Presumably it will reject the pull request at that point. > > If it doesn't conflict, you'll have both alternate histories. So > nothing is lost. > > Maybe I'm misunderstanding the question? (That is definitely possible. > The idea that a person would go to the effort of rewriting history - > especially when that person knows the original history would stay put > - often enough to cause problems is like suggesting that a person > might write log messages in latin. I'm having a hard time envisioning > the need to write down a social rule about it, much less the need to > write an AI to try to detect it.) I think you understood the question perfectly, and your comments all make sense. Perhaps I'm just being paranoid and this won't be a problem at all. A bit of background might help explain my paranoia: I'm about to pilot Git on a fairly large project, where none of the users have Git experience, and many of them don't have much experience with any other version control system either. I had to fight hard to get this pilot approved, and a lot of people will be watching to see how it goes, so I'm trying to do anything I can to make sure it will be successful. James -- 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
