Re: Referring to revisions in the git future

[David Kastrup]

Stefan Monnier <address@hidden> writes:

>>> There's no reason why the commit message would need to be considered as
>>> being part of the "immutable history".  IOW there's no technical reason
>>> to include the commit message in the Git hash.
>> git has a separate hash for the tree. "git cat-file commit
>> <somecommitsha1>" will show you that.
>
> I know, but the "parents" reference a "commit", not a "tree".

I see the danger of companies or people having fun obfuscating/stripping
repositories where there are only isolated root commits without DAG.
Those are not helpful for development.  One idea of Git was to have
verifiable records, also with regard to attributions.  Being able to
silently render parts of history useless for work, possibly having it
spread out through push/pop eventually, is not really a comforting idea.

For that reason, I think that the current scheme is not the worst idea.
One can add "notes" after the fact, and it is conceivable to create
notes that are used for patching typos when creating a ChangeLog
automatically if it is really important to someone.

But I consider it reasonable that the default records are indelible.

-- 
David Kastrup