What are the practical consequences of rewriting GIT history?
Our project has been using git for a week or so now, and we're all enjoying it a lot (usíng it in a tight collaborative group turns out to be quite a different git experience). To keep things as simple as possible, we do not do any rebasing or history modifications. But we did make a few mistakes in the first week. A few commits were made that shouldn't have been done, and we managed to merge a feature branch into the wrong integration branch (1.1 instead of 1.0). And we didn't find out about these things until they were long into our history.
Now I see a lot of warnings about rewriting history, but I'm not really sure I understand the dangers involved. We use a shared bare repository, and all branches are pushed there for backup.
I would expect that if you rewrite history (say remove a commit), the full list of subsequent commits will "lose" that commit (and maybe not compile/work). I would also expect that if this happens I could actually choose to fix this at the top of history (and just leave that part of history as non-compiling).
Any references to articles/tutorials on this subject would also be really nice.
Required reading is Problems with rewriting history in the Git User's Manual.
If I rewrite history (and everything compiles/works in all affected branches), will my co-workers need to do any special commands (ie will they "know that I have done it" if I did it well?)?
They will know, and Git will tell them in no uncertain terms that something is wrong. They will get unexpected error messages, and may in the process of trying to resolve the resulting merge conflicts, inadvertently revert previous commits. This problem creates a real message, and if you're curious to see what happens you can always try it on a temporary copy of your repositories.
Will any users with local changes that I do not know about be eligible for merge failures on git pull ?
Absolutely, see above.
Am I missing anything essential here ?
Avoid rewriting history at (almost) all costs!
As mentioned in the other answer comments, in practice each commit is unique and rewriting history will make new commits.
You can think of it as cutting off the branches of a tree and then instantly growing new ones. They may even look the same but aren't. Yes, voodoo magic. In this analogy, reverting would be almost like supporting a falling branch with a log, so it will grow its way without falling down.
That leads us to a couple good reasons to rewrite history:
Those already reveal what Greg already said: rewriting history will potentially screw up everyone if the repository is public (pushed commits). Reason why I also advocate on avoid doing it at all costs even in private repos, just to keep the good habit: and so rewriting history should be avoided at all costs (this means to just give enough consideration before doing it: weight up the pros and cons!)
And there is at least another philosophical and overlooked reason: rewritten history is data lost . True, a git history with revert might look messier than a reset one. But if properly written, all that "mess" can be hidden away in separated branches and still we can see precisely at what point a revert was done. And even with reasons or evidence as to why it was done.
Back to the tree analogy, even if you do remove the supporting log, the reverted branch will show the sinuous growing curves, and it is beautiful!
链接地址: http://www.djcxy.com/p/16982.html上一篇: 由于合并而不允许git revert <hash>，但不是
下一篇: 重写GIT历史的实际后果是什么？