3 ms·
Given that commits are immutable objects, the only sane interpretation of "rewriting history" is that it rewrites your view of the history rather than somehow r
by eridius 10y ago
Given that commits are immutable objects, the only sane interpretation of "rewriting history" is that it rewrites your view of the history rather than somehow rewriting immutable content-addressed objects.
- gwright 10y agoSure, but lots of people using git don't really understand that commits are immutable or that the commit tree is an append-only data structure. The pervasive use of the phrase 'rewrite history' hinders this understanding.
- eridius 10y agoI disagree. I've used Git for a long time, and talked to a lot of Git users, and I've never seen anyone say something that implied they thought they were literally modifying the commit objects, as opposed to rewriting the history of a branch.