[RFC] history editing vs history presentation

Maritza Mendez martitzam at gmail.com
Thu Jun 11 06:48:15 BST 2009

Agreed Robert.  The key is to let users decide how much auditing
support they do or don't need to drag along.

Thanks for the discussion.


On 6/10/09, Robert Collins <robert.collins at canonical.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-06-10 at 18:28 -0700, Maritza Mendez wrote:
>> Points well taken.  Your idea of ”shadow history” matches my second
>> thought quite well.  Namely no history is ever lost.  History edits
>> are purely additive and history which has been ”overwritten” is simply
>> marked as superseded.  This works for all forms of history, not just
>> commit messages.
>> On the other hand . I reject arguments based on the size of the repo.
>> It is perfectly acceptable for extreme use cases to carry matching
>> consequences.  If that becomes unbearable, then just as you pointed
>> out in a different context, the user can branch to a new location,
>> leaving behind the "shadow" history.
> Actually, branching would copy the shadow history too for a number of
> reasons. Disconnecting permanent links in history is much harder than
> removing external annotations. I wouldn't have raised size as a concern
> if it wasn't :). I assert that users need the ability to choose what
> degree of auditing and rollback they need - and I think we're agreed
> there.
> -Rob

Sent from my mobile device

More information about the bazaar mailing list