On 4/25/2017 3:12 PM, Ngie Cooper wrote: > On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 2:26 PM, Bryan Drewery <bdrew...@freebsd.org> wrote: > > ... > >> It is definitely more useful to note which repository and what VCS >> system the revision/hash/version refers to. But there's nothing >> inherently wrong about using a git hash. Github != git. It is merely an >> interface to git and is not required to use any of the git repositories >> on it given another mirror or local checkout. If a project uses git as >> their official VCS then a git hash is the proper reference. > > The only issues with using git hashes stems from forced pushes and > the fact that only hashes can be garbage collected, but if we're using > an upstream that does that, they are using git wrong (it should only > be done for non-development mainlines). Then again, at least the > history will have been somewhat correct, as cvs/svn history can be > rewritten :/... > Thanks, > -Ngie >
"Force push". This exact same thing can happen with SVN and CVS by a repository admin. Respectable projects that are using git officially won't rebase their main branches unless under severe circumstance. Same for SVN/CVS. SVN->GIT mirrors or CVS->GIT mirrors may be prone to that naturally though, but we should not be cherry-picking from that since it is not the source of truth for the project. -- Regards, Bryan Drewery
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
