From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: git-subtree Ready #2 Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 16:23:38 -0500 Message-ID: <20120227212337.GA19864@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <20120220205346.GA6335@sigill.intra.peff.net> <7vd399jdwc.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> <7vobsox84l.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> <87hayfv75y.fsf@smith.obbligato.org> <7vy5rrfft2.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> <87ty2ft0tm.fsf@smith.obbligato.org> <7vobsk56md.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> <20120227212157.GA19779@sigill.intra.peff.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: "David A. Greene" , Avery Pennarun , git@vger.kernel.org To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Mon Feb 27 22:24:04 2012 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1S2839-0000AV-0Z for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Mon, 27 Feb 2012 22:24:03 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755661Ab2B0VXl (ORCPT ); Mon, 27 Feb 2012 16:23:41 -0500 Received: from 99-108-226-0.lightspeed.iplsin.sbcglobal.net ([99.108.226.0]:59061 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755392Ab2B0VXk (ORCPT ); Mon, 27 Feb 2012 16:23:40 -0500 Received: (qmail 32460 invoked by uid 107); 27 Feb 2012 21:23:43 -0000 Received: from sigill.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.7) (smtp-auth username relayok, mechanism cram-md5) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with ESMTPA; Mon, 27 Feb 2012 16:23:43 -0500 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Mon, 27 Feb 2012 16:23:38 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20120227212157.GA19779@sigill.intra.peff.net> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 04:21:57PM -0500, Jeff King wrote: > > So the answer to your question is yes, but I do not think we heard opinion > > from anybody regarding the question by Avery yet. I personally do not see > > how it would help us if the old history is rewritten at this point. > > Yeah, I don't see much point in rewriting. If parts of the history suck, > then so be it. It's probably not that big to store. And while it's > sometimes easier to fix bad commit messages when they are recent and in > your memory (rather than trying to remember later what you meant to > say), I think it is already too late for that. Any archaeology you do > now to make good commit messages could probably just as easily be done > if and when somebody actually needs the commit message later (emphasis > on the "if" -- it's likely that nobody will care about most of the > commit messages later at all). Sorry, the "you" there is meant to be David. Forgot who I was responding to for a minute. -Peff