3 ms·

> But "not changing commit IDs" isn't part of git's utility. How is that not a useful, intentional feature of git? Commit IDs (hashes) ensure DAG consistency a

by mikea1 4y ago

> But "not changing commit IDs" isn't part of git's utility. How is that not a useful, intentional feature of git? Commit IDs (hashes) ensure DAG consistency as well as many other benefits. Linus explains it better than I could[0]. > This is easily proven by the fact that people do rewrite history. Because it's a useful feature to have. It depends on the context. Try to rewrite commits in a PR for any public repo and see whether others agree it's a useful feature. Anyway, I think you're proving the counter point: this is a shared feature of git and block chains - you know when history has been rewritten because the hashes changed. [0] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XpnKHJAok8&t=56m16s http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XpnKHJAok8&t=56m16s

knorker 4y ago
Sure, it's a hiccup to rewrite history. But in Bitcoin it's 100% fundamental breakage. There's a difference.
- MayeulC 4y ago
  I think you didn't take the parent's suggestion to make a PR seriously enough. It is closer than you seem to think: rewriting history in a public, published repository will wreak havoc across contributors'clones. Contributors will have to contact upstream and ask if there was a reason, if it was intentional, or a malicious event. Especially if the root commit was changed, in which case you can't even attempt to merge repositories. I don't really see why you couldn't backtrack the bitcoin blockchain, pretend an arbitrary block is the most recent one, and start your fork from there. The difference is,is that if you want to include some subsequent blocks, you will have to provide some proofs of work. In both cases, some convincing is needed to move the consensus base to a new one. https://git-scm.com/book/en/v2/Git-Tools-Rewriting-History https://git-scm.com/book/en/v2/Git-Tools-Rewriting-History In the important note: > One of the cardinal rules of Git is that, since so much work is local within your clone, you have a great deal of freedom to rewrite your history locally. However, once you push your work, it is a different story entirely, and you should consider pushed work as final unless you have good reason to change it. In short, you should avoid pushing your work until you’re happy with it and ready to share it with the rest of the world. Also: > it can rewrite huge swaths of your history, so you probably shouldn’t use it unless your project isn’t yet public and other people haven’t based work off the commits you’re about to rewrite This is git 101. People can still choose to follow your rewritten history fork though, and it's also the case for bitcoin.
  - knorker 4y ago
    I replied to most things here in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32443447 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32443447 In git it's a hiccup if upstream does it. But it does work. For buttcoin you get the DAO split.

by mikea1 4y ago

knorker 4y ago

Sure, it's a hiccup to rewrite history. But in Bitcoin it's 100% fundamental breakage. There's a difference.

MayeulC 4y ago
I think you didn't take the parent's suggestion to make a PR seriously enough. It is closer than you seem to think: rewriting history in a public, published repository will wreak havoc across contributors'clones. Contributors will have to contact upstream and ask if there was a reason, if it was intentional, or a malicious event. Especially if the root commit was changed, in which case you can't even attempt to merge repositories. I don't really see why you couldn't backtrack the bitcoin blockchain, pretend an arbitrary block is the most recent one, and start your fork from there. The difference is,is that if you want to include some subsequent blocks, you will have to provide some proofs of work. In both cases, some convincing is needed to move the consensus base to a new one. https://git-scm.com/book/en/v2/Git-Tools-Rewriting-History https://git-scm.com/book/en/v2/Git-Tools-Rewriting-History In the important note: > One of the cardinal rules of Git is that, since so much work is local within your clone, you have a great deal of freedom to rewrite your history locally. However, once you push your work, it is a different story entirely, and you should consider pushed work as final unless you have good reason to change it. In short, you should avoid pushing your work until you’re happy with it and ready to share it with the rest of the world. Also: > it can rewrite huge swaths of your history, so you probably shouldn’t use it unless your project isn’t yet public and other people haven’t based work off the commits you’re about to rewrite This is git 101. People can still choose to follow your rewritten history fork though, and it's also the case for bitcoin.
- knorker 4y ago
  I replied to most things here in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32443447 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32443447 In git it's a hiccup if upstream does it. But it does work. For buttcoin you get the DAO split.