git

Peff's git repository

Developer Tools

Explore on GitHub Read Hacker News discussions

2Distinct people

4Mentions

0Explicit recommenders

34GitHub stars

REPOSITORY AT A GLANCE

What to know before exploring

What it is

Peff's git repository

GitHub

Where it is used

No documented product use has been verified yet.

What people are saying

No recommendation phrase was found in the indexed comments.

No classified warning is attached to this page. Read the discussions before treating silence as approval.

Also in these discussions

No other repository is repeatedly linked in the same discussions.

This week on Hacker News

Nov 7–Nov 14 UTC · Direct repository links and separately labeled related project stories. Indexed through 11/14/2026, 12:54:37 PM UTC.

No direct repository links were found in the indexed HN discussions over the past seven days. Older discussions are available below.

Mentions over time

HN mentions by year4 dated mentions

Observed mentions: 2013-11-05 20:16:06 UTC to 2017-02-06 14:59:13 UTC.

Counts come from the repository’s dated source evidence. Index cutoff: 2026-11-02 08:16:59 UTC.

View mention counts and date ranges

UTC ranges include their start and exclude their end. Select a period to filter the source evidence.
Period	Start (UTC)	End (exclusive, UTC)	Mentions	Comments
2013	2013-01-01 00:00:00 UTC	2014-01-01 00:00:00 UTC	2	2
2014	2014-01-01 00:00:00 UTC	2015-01-01 00:00:00 UTC	0	0
2015	2015-01-01 00:00:00 UTC	2016-01-01 00:00:00 UTC	1	1
2016	2016-01-01 00:00:00 UTC	2017-01-01 00:00:00 UTC	0	0
2017	2017-01-01 00:00:00 UTC	2018-01-01 00:00:00 UTC	1	1

What Hacker News says

4 sources

develop7·Feb 6, 2017

Oh, that's why (vanilla) Git can't have nice things like rename/copy tracking, let alone "commit publishedness" flag[1]? 1: https://github.com/peff/git/wiki/SoC-2012-Ideas#published-an...

In How I review patches (Junio C. Hamano, 2017)

jordigh·Feb 18, 2015

> Of course you never rewrite history on a public branch!! The problem is that git doesn't track what "public" means. There was a proposal to work on this for GSoC 2012[1], but nobody picked it up. This concept is called "phases"[2] in Mercurial, which are a building block for Evolve[3]. In Mercurial, it'ss possible to safely rewrite commits, and it's also possible to safely propagate your edits to other repos. Git would have to grow something like changeset evolution to make this completely safe and to be able to deprecate `git push --force`. There could be a safer alternative that does not require any forcing. [1] https://github.com/peff/git/wiki/SoC-2012-Ideas#published-an... [2] http://mercurial.selenic.com/wiki/Phases [3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4OlDm3akbqg

In Fix conflicts only once with Git rerere

jordigh·Dec 15, 2013

Hg is working on a feature that is betaish right now: http://mercurial.selenic.com/wiki/ChangesetEvolution It's been brewing for some time. Basically, the idea is to be able to make it easy to safely edit history collaboratively, with a consistent UI. Facebook is pumping a lot of money into hg right now, and seems particularly interested in getting this feature off the ground. A number of pieces have been falling into place for this to occur. The first was to have phases, indicators of which commits are safe to edit collaboratively or not, a feature that some git users have wanted: https://github.com/peff/git/wiki/SoC-2012-Ideas#published-an... Mercurial now has this feature and uses it as part of the logic for the evolve extension. With this in place, hg is able to transmit metadata that indicates automatically which commits need to be

Read the rest

fixed up if you want to edit a commit that someone else has also edited, or if someone edited a commit on top of which you've based off other commits. The idea is to make something like "git push --force" obsolete. History is safe to edit, and commits can't get lost, not even by accident: http://www.infoq.com/news/2013/11/use-the-force By the way, an epilogue to that Jenkins story is that it wasn't completely trivial to recover all lost history, and at least for some of the smaller repos, they never managed to figure out exactly which version was the canonical one.

In On undoing, fixing, or removing commits in git

jordigh·Nov 5, 2013

No, problem with git rebase is that it allows you to do this. Read this part of the git manual: man git-rebase | grep -P "^RECOVERING" -A200 | less Phases are actually a feature that git wants (last idea here): https://github.com/peff/git/wiki/SoC-2012-Ideas You have some ways you can work with this in hg using phases. One example is to mark the repo you're publishing to as non-publishing so that hg knows it's safe to edit history pushed to that repo. Another way is to just tell hg that you know better and to use "hg phase --force --draft" whatever commits you want to histedit or rebase.

In Mercurial 2.8 Released