From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CEA99C433EF for ; Thu, 21 Jul 2022 15:57:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S230114AbiGUP5Y convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Jul 2022 11:57:24 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:54592 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229547AbiGUP5X (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Jul 2022 11:57:23 -0400 Received: from elephants.elehost.com (elephants.elehost.com [216.66.27.132]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 275A674E3B for ; Thu, 21 Jul 2022 08:57:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from Mazikeen (cpe00fc8d49d843-cm00fc8d49d840.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com [174.119.96.21] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by elephants.elehost.com (8.16.1/8.16.1) with ESMTPSA id 26LFvFcJ037706 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 21 Jul 2022 11:57:16 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from rsbecker@nexbridge.com) Reply-To: From: To: "'Konstantin Ryabitsev'" Cc: "'Junio C Hamano'" , References: <010101d89d16$a97184a0$fc548de0$@nexbridge.com> <20220721153955.lnfqfilri24i2yw6@meerkat.local> In-Reply-To: <20220721153955.lnfqfilri24i2yw6@meerkat.local> Subject: RE: On-branch topic description support? Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2022 11:57:11 -0400 Organization: Nexbridge Inc. Message-ID: <010301d89d1a$8cdc54b0$a694fe10$@nexbridge.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0 Content-Language: en-ca Thread-Index: AQEkKUYbAx2+J5zTwv5GK2so27+hNQITrdhNAl+rp5kBXh+q4a7DVd4A Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On July 21, 2022 11:40 AM, Konstantin Ryabitsev wrote: >On Thu, Jul 21, 2022 at 11:29:20AM -0400, rsbecker@nexbridge.com wrote: >> I might be missing something here, but could not a description follow >> similar semantics to how git describe works on tags? Anchor the >> description on the commit where the branch was spawned, then determine >> the appropriate description based on things like --first-parent. >> Again, I'm probably in the weeds. > >I think the trouble is that "commit where the branch was spawned" is not reliable >due to: > >- rebasing the work on a different branch >- reordering commits (including the first commit in the series) > >This is the main reason why I actually want to stick the empty commit with the >cover letter not at the tip of the branch, but at the start of the series, so as to >clearly demarcate where the series of commits we're interested in starts (at least >while the author is working on them -- when it sent off upstream that commit can >get removed/moved). That process may be more suitable outside the git team where merge --squash is commonplace and the whole series goes into next, main, maint as a single commit as the empty commit will simply vanish. Although, with that said, for the git team's committer process, having a starting point commit in the history also has some obvious advantages, for example, starting and ending points in history for git bisect when things go terribly wrong. --R