Re: Referring to revisions in the git future

[Stefan Monnier]

> The tension here is fundamental.  You can have easy typo fixes, or you
> can have a record that is both reliable and snared, but not both.
> I think the latter is more important than the former.

I think you've just been brain-washed by the Bzr/Git/Hg crowd.
There's no reason why the commit message would need to be considered as
being part of the "immutable history".  IOW there's no technical reason
to include the commit message in the Git hash.
[ For that same reason, I think a DVCS like Git should not include the
  parents in the computation of the hash either, so you can later on
  change the history graph (which might not be a DAG any more).  ]

Furthermore, even now that those tools have already decided to keep the
commit message in the immutable history, we can still change the way
"git log" displays the commit message, by including "git-log-patches" in
subsequent commits.  I haven't seen such a tool for Git yet, sadly.


        Stefan