Raffi Enficiaud wrote:
The problems created by history rewrite are human-to-human, not human-to-robot:
This is not true. Today the boost supermodule points to a particular sha of the submodule you want to rewrite the history of. If you rewrite the history of the submodule, the commit referenced by the sha will be garbage collected and no one in the future will be able to make a checkout of the boost supermodule as it is today. You affect usefulness of the supermodule by rewriting history of a submodule. Just don't do it. You could push a branch with the current state of develop to a branch named develop-in-early-October-2015 which would prevent the shas referenced by the supermodule being garbage collected. How many times do you want to push branches with names like that? How do you defend against a zealous maintainer 'cleaning up useless branches' and breaking the supermodule history? Thanks, Steve.