From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Woodhouse Subject: Re: [git patches] libata updates, GPG signed (but see admin notes) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 13:52:45 +0000 Message-ID: <1320933165.17392.24.camel@i7.infradead.org> References: <20111026202235.GA20928@havoc.gtf.org> <1319969101.5215.20.camel@dabdike> <1320049150.8283.19.camel@dabdike> <7vy5w1ow90.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> <7vwrbjlj5r.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Junio C Hamano , git@vger.kernel.org, James Bottomley , Jeff Garzik , Andrew Morton , linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, LKML To: Linus Torvalds X-From: linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org Thu Nov 10 14:52:55 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: lnx-linux-ide@lo.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1ROV3l-0003bG-16 for lnx-linux-ide@lo.gmane.org; Thu, 10 Nov 2011 14:52:53 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S934622Ab1KJNwv (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 Nov 2011 08:52:51 -0500 Received: from casper.infradead.org ([85.118.1.10]:48696 "EHLO casper.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932574Ab1KJNwu (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 Nov 2011 08:52:50 -0500 Received: from i7.infradead.org ([2001:8b0:10b:1:225:64ff:fee8:e9df]) by casper.infradead.org with esmtpsa (Exim 4.76 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1ROV3g-0003Kj-1c; Thu, 10 Nov 2011 13:52:48 +0000 In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Evolution 3.2.1 (3.2.1-2.fc16) X-SRS-Rewrite: SMTP reverse-path rewritten from by casper.infradead.org See http://www.infradead.org/rpr.html Sender: linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Tue, 2011-11-01 at 14:21 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > I hate how anonymous our branches are. Sure, we can use good names for > them, but it was a mistake to think we should describe the repository > (for gitweb), rather than the branch. > > Ok, "hate" is a strong word. I don't "hate" it. I don't even think > it's a major design issue. But I do think that it would have been > nicer if we had had some branch description model. I actually quite like it. I take it as a hint: if the contents of a branch are *so* wildly different from the main repository that they need a different description, perhaps I should be using a separate repository instead of just a branch. -- dwmw2