5 ms·

Actually I think commit logs in this case are good evidence. You can't just rewrite git history without having everyone in on it. It's not foolproof (the compan

by habitue 13y ago

Actually I think commit logs in this case are good evidence. You can't just rewrite git history without having everyone in on it. It's not foolproof (the company could have mandated that everyone drop their local versions, or the branch with the reversions could have been shared by a small number of people who were willing to conspire), but it's very strong evidence I'd say.

XorNot 13y ago
Conversely it would be pretty easy to say "well this is the official repo" and ensure no one asks any further questions in a flurry of feux-outrage.
- habitue 13y ago
  I think even then, the chances are pretty high that someone will go "oops, I accidentally merged back in the old version of the repo. Sorry guys". I've tried rewriting an entire repo before (to remove huge binary files) and even with a small team, it only takes one person out of the loop to bring everything back in.
- habitue 13y ago
  Actually, I see what you're saying. Tell the investigator some cleaned version of the repo is the official one. That is a plausible way to get around it. I still feel like it's less likely they were willing to throw a co-founder under the bus, but would go to such great lengths to protect "some engineer".
  - XorNot 13y ago
    It doesn't even really have to be malicious so much as disinterested, which is how most of these types of workplace problems fester. People don't set out to actively create a caustic environment - they just don't want to be bothered with the tricky business of preventing one.
matdes 13y ago
> You can't just rewrite git history without having everyone in on it. umm...I've got something to tell you...
- habitue 13y ago
  Please, explain. I acknowledged the ways I could think of that a widely shared git repo could have its history modified. I admit my knowledge of gits lowest levels is a bit murky, but I'd like to hear specifics if you have them.
  - ephemeralgomi 13y ago
    No, you're totally right here. I think matdes skimmed over the critical "without having everyone in on it" part of your post.

by habitue 13y ago

XorNot 13y ago

Conversely it would be pretty easy to say "well this is the official repo" and ensure no one asks any further questions in a flurry of feux-outrage.

habitue 13y ago
I think even then, the chances are pretty high that someone will go "oops, I accidentally merged back in the old version of the repo. Sorry guys". I've tried rewriting an entire repo before (to remove huge binary files) and even with a small team, it only takes one person out of the loop to bring everything back in.
habitue 13y ago
Actually, I see what you're saying. Tell the investigator some cleaned version of the repo is the official one. That is a plausible way to get around it. I still feel like it's less likely they were willing to throw a co-founder under the bus, but would go to such great lengths to protect "some engineer".
- XorNot 13y ago
  It doesn't even really have to be malicious so much as disinterested, which is how most of these types of workplace problems fester. People don't set out to actively create a caustic environment - they just don't want to be bothered with the tricky business of preventing one.

matdes 13y ago

> You can't just rewrite git history without having everyone in on it. umm...I've got something to tell you...

habitue 13y ago
Please, explain. I acknowledged the ways I could think of that a widely shared git repo could have its history modified. I admit my knowledge of gits lowest levels is a bit murky, but I'd like to hear specifics if you have them.
- ephemeralgomi 13y ago
  No, you're totally right here. I think matdes skimmed over the critical "without having everyone in on it" part of your post.