I don't care about Linux-libre, but I *do* care about ability to "change the history" [LWN.net]

I don't care about Linux-libre, but I do care about ability to "change the history"

Posted Jan 6, 2011 18:29 UTC (Thu) by khim (subscriber, #9252)
In reply to: The trouble with firmware by bronson
Parent article: The trouble with firmware

In theory it's nice to have immutable history. In practice it'll be needed to remove some files from your server... completely. For legal reason.

So while it find the hoopla about Linux-libre strange and unneeded I'd like to see the solution for the problem discussed. I'm not needed it till now and I hope to never see the need for it, but... better safe than sorry...

(Log in to post comments)

I don't care about Linux-libre, but I *do* care about ability to "change the history"

Posted Jan 6, 2011 22:07 UTC (Thu) by bronson (subscriber, #4806) [Link]

I erased some history a few months ago when a production password was accidentally committed to our repo. I totally agree that the need exists, but I'm not sure we need a new tool. git filter-branch worked perfectly.

Yes, master's SHA changed, but that's exactly what I would expect to happen! I'd hate for someone to be able to change my history without any hint whatsoever.

I do wish git handled rewritten remote branches better. When some people pulled, they ended up with a bizarre-looking merge, one branch of which I suppose had missing objects (I didn't look, just blew it away and checked out a fixed tracking branch). git should say, "hey dude, upstream has yanked the rug out. Maybe check your email for instructions?" and refuse to do anything until you've rebased things back to normal.

But, yes, the SHA should always change!