Re: History messup

[Petr Baudis <pasky@ucw.cz>]

Dear diary, on Mon, May 09, 2005 at 09:06:38PM CEST, I got a letter
where David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org> told me that...
> On Mon, 2005-05-09 at 12:01 -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> > Seems like a UUID or a SHA-1 identifier would be better.
> > 
> > However, one can definitely argue that even the meaning of "a 
> > repository" isn't well-defined in the context of git.
> 
> Of course it isn't. But neither is the meaning "a committer" or 
> "an author" or even "a date".
> 
> Including some kind of repo-specific identifier with each commit would
> help us to make sense of the history, just as those other fields do.

FWIW, I recently added .git/branch-name to Cogito, since I needed some
identifier through which to differentiate between the branches
(repositories - it's all blurred in Cogito view) when sending commits
to CIA.

It is strictly per-branch (never to be shared by multiple repositories),
optional, informative and more of a temporary solution for now I had to
cook together in a minute.

-- 
				Petr "Pasky" Baudis
Stuff: http://pasky.or.cz/
C++: an octopus made by nailing extra legs onto a dog. -- Steve Taylor