From previous reading of Linus rants, it sounds like they're pretty particular about keeping source code and git history clean. Why didn't they go back and reverse the new root created by the README.md repo?
His rants are also pretty particular about not rewriting published history. As he said on the linked message, "[...] I didn't notice the history screw-up until too late, [...]", so he probably already had pushed to the public "master" branch on the git.kernel.org servers. Once it's there, other kernel developers might already have pulled from it, so trying to rewrite the git history to remove the commit would only lead to an unholy mess (and the offending commit coming back) the next time he merges from them.
I have spent the last 2-3 years educating auditors and after quite some effort, they have learned to appreciate git. To the point where they are now starting to ask some of their other clients why _they_ are not doing something similar.
Auditors LOVE immutability. To be fair, git doesn't provide that, but it provides the next-best alternative: tamper detection. If anyone rewrites history, git will show that. The gitrefs between two points in time will not match if anyone has modified data or commits in the meantime. The auditors also have no problem looking at previous years' documents where they have recorded the relevant gitrefs at the time.
This has gone so far that this year's policy review was a breeze. Our compliance documentation is maintained in a git repo, with all documents as markdown files. The final documents are simply compiled PDF and HTML artifacts.
In 2016, the auditors asked if we can provide snapshots of previous policy versions. In 2017, they already understood that we have everything in git, and knew to ask for clarifications as to when a particular change was done and who had signed it off. This year our auditors literally asked for the latest compliance documentation bundle from CI, all the individual commits, and the overall diff over the year.
Honestly his attitude in general seems to be "once live, it stays", no matter if it is git commits, "broken" APIs, or anything really (just check out his recent opinion on the C standard).
Likely because that would mean rewriting public history, which I believe Linus is opposed to, particularly in the case of a huge project like the kernel.
cesarb|7 years ago
bostik|7 years ago
Auditors LOVE immutability. To be fair, git doesn't provide that, but it provides the next-best alternative: tamper detection. If anyone rewrites history, git will show that. The gitrefs between two points in time will not match if anyone has modified data or commits in the meantime. The auditors also have no problem looking at previous years' documents where they have recorded the relevant gitrefs at the time.
This has gone so far that this year's policy review was a breeze. Our compliance documentation is maintained in a git repo, with all documents as markdown files. The final documents are simply compiled PDF and HTML artifacts.
In 2016, the auditors asked if we can provide snapshots of previous policy versions. In 2017, they already understood that we have everything in git, and knew to ask for clarifications as to when a particular change was done and who had signed it off. This year our auditors literally asked for the latest compliance documentation bundle from CI, all the individual commits, and the overall diff over the year.
Wall time spent for policy review: ~20 minutes.
digi_owl|7 years ago
cesarb|7 years ago
atheriel|7 years ago
duncan-donuts|7 years ago
unknown|7 years ago
[deleted]