Donald Stufft <donald@stufft.io> writes:
It’s not lost, [… a long, presumably-accurate discourse of the many conditions that must be met before …] you can restore it.
This isn't the place to discuss the details of Git's internals, I think. I'm merely pointing out that:
The important thing to realize is that a “branch” isn’t anything special in git.
Because of that, Ethan's impression – that Git's default behaviour encourages losing history (by re-writing the history of commits to be other than what they were) is true, and “Git never loses history” simply isn't true. Whether that is a *problem* is a matter of debate, but the fact that Git's common workflow commonly discards information that some consider valuable, is a simple fact. If Ethan chooses to make that a factor in his decisions about Git, the facts are on his side. -- \ “One of the most important things you learn from the internet | `\ is that there is no ‘them’ out there. It's just an awful lot of | _o__) ‘us’.” —Douglas Adams | Ben Finney