Git's initial commit

brandonbloom wrote: post #3

I love checking out very early versions of projects. You often get to see the essence before the real world came in and ruined the beauty of it.

I do this as well. It really should be more widely broadcast.

(I've also spent some time thinking about how it's kind of a hack, and what we can do to make it better: http://akkartik.name/post/wart-layers)

Re: Git's initial commit

#8

Post by SwellJoe » Mon, Nov 24, 2014, 1:40 AM UTC

byteCoder wrote: post #5

Following the tradition of sports, I propose that commit id e83c5163316f89bfbde7d9ab23ca2e25604af290 be officially retired.

Every commit id is pretty much automatically retired. The odds of collisions in our lifetime are pretty small.

Or am I over-thinking it?

Re: Git's initial commit

#9

Post by traek » Mon, Nov 24, 2014, 1:44 AM UTC

SwellJoe wrote: post #8

byteCoder wrote: post #5

Following the tradition of sports, I propose that commit id e83c5163316f89bfbde7d9ab23ca2e25604af290 be officially retired.

Every commit id is pretty much automatically retired. The odds of collisions in our lifetime are pretty small. Or am I over-thinking it?

Yeah, I'm pretty sure it was a joke.

Re: Git's initial commit

#10

Post by VieElm » Mon, Nov 24, 2014, 1:45 AM UTC

byteCoder wrote: post #5

Following the tradition of sports, I propose that commit id e83c5163316f89bfbde7d9ab23ca2e25604af290 be officially retired.

I was under the impression that git hashes are generated based on the contents in a commit. If that's true you cannot retire them. They're not random.