From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nicolas Sebrecht Subject: Re: Disallow amending published commits? Date: Sun, 22 Mar 2009 16:15:08 +0100 Message-ID: <20090322151508.GA13577@vidovic> References: <885649360903211056u38ff6cabxbe1a17d57faaa0c4@mail.gmail.com> <885649360903211549h751c19e6sbaa0e07a14413d19@mail.gmail.com> <885649360903212109v316f441fvea3f498e91c0059e@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Peter Harris , Git ML To: James Pickens X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sun Mar 22 16:16:50 2009 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1LlPPs-0008Mq-C5 for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Sun, 22 Mar 2009 16:16:48 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754757AbZCVPPT (ORCPT ); Sun, 22 Mar 2009 11:15:19 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754723AbZCVPPS (ORCPT ); Sun, 22 Mar 2009 11:15:18 -0400 Received: from out4.laposte.net ([193.251.214.121]:50340 "EHLO out3.laposte.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754365AbZCVPPS (ORCPT ); Sun, 22 Mar 2009 11:15:18 -0400 Received: from meplus.info (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mwinf8314.laposte.net (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 100107000098; Sun, 22 Mar 2009 16:15:10 +0100 (CET) Received: from ? (91-165-135-230.rev.libertysurf.net [91.165.135.230]) by mwinf8314.laposte.net (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 5A1417000094; Sun, 22 Mar 2009 16:15:09 +0100 (CET) X-ME-UUID: 20090322151509369.5A1417000094@mwinf8314.laposte.net Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <885649360903212109v316f441fvea3f498e91c0059e@mail.gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) X-me-spamlevel: not-spam X-me-spamrating: 40.000000 X-me-spamcause: OK, (-150)(0000)gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrvdekuddrfeduucetggdotefuucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuoehnohhnvgeqnecuuegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecufghrlhcuvffnffculddvtddmneesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmneculddquddttddmnehnohcuhhhoshhtuchurhhlucdlfedtmd Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 09:09:43PM -0700, James Pickens wrote: > 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. I guess it's most depending of your proposed general workflow. So, it makes sense. > 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. As I understand, a part of your workflow is based on automatic testing stages. It could be a good thing but I think you have to fit this into a more general "human based worflow". I mean that parallel developments should have one or more "official maintainers". Maintainers would have to care of the history integrity, assume the responsability of passing the tests, etc. IMHO, good maintainers you can trust is much better than any "more automatic restrictive testing suites". Here is a link talking about that kind of issues that you (and your maintainers) may be interested in: http://kerneltrap.org/Linux/Git_Management -- Nicolas Sebrecht