Git Blame-Someone-Else

Post by deathanatos » Fri, Sep 20, 2019, 5:18 PM UTC

orf wrote: post #48

SilasX wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

GP isn't saying GitHub should copy the entire repo, only that there should be some indication that the code you're looking at isn't the repo owner's (despite being committed in their name and on a repo they "control"). I don't see what optimization requires that. They already keep track of e.g. me pushing up someone else's commit after a rebase -- it indicates that I pushed but the commit originally came from someone…

> I don't see what optimization requires that. From a single commit ID you cannot tell which repo it came from. A "repo" is just a tree of commits.

Post by i_v » Fri, Sep 20, 2019, 5:27 PM UTC

brlewis wrote: post #14

This might have a serious use. I have a private repo that I worked on with my daughter. If I open source it, ideally I'd keep the chronological history but scrub her email address out of it. It's OK that all the commit hashes would change. Would I want to adapt this joke tool to that purpose, or is there an exiting tool for rewriting history that way?

Post by gus_massa » Fri, Sep 20, 2019, 6:20 PM UTC

mh8h wrote: post #47

gus_massa wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cryptographically signing the commits makes rebasing impossible (or at least more difficult). In some cases the rebase is very clean, and none of the modified files had changed by other commits. I guess in this case, git can have a rule to keep a "link" to the old commit and accept the old signature as a signature of the new commit. In some cases there are trivial changes, like indentation because someone else added…

That's because you are not supposed to rebase other people's code on top of a changed base. That can effectively modify the behaviour of their code change. So it's good that the resulting commit won't be signed anymore. And if you are rebasing your own code, then you can sign it again.

Post by chemodax » Fri, Sep 20, 2019, 7:32 PM UTC

AceJohnny2 wrote: post #41

eljimmy wrote: post #33

I really dislike the term chosen for this feature. “Blame”, assumes the code is broken or written improperly in some way. Most of the time I use it I’m just trying to find out who wrote it so I can find the original commit to understand it in more context. Should have named it “git who”

SVN has the alias "svn praise". I was disappointed that git didn't have it, so I created myself one. I'm glad git has trivial support for aliases.

Post by heftig » Fri, Sep 20, 2019, 7:38 PM UTC

odyssey7 wrote: post #42

smitop wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the repo "network" This is actually an optimization done by GitHub. It would take up a lot of space if GitHub copied the entire repo every time someone forked it, so they keep all the commits in the original repo. As a side effect, commits in forks are accessible from the original repo since commits from both repos are stored in the same place.

I'd imagine this is why GitHub disallows private forks?