From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: branch description Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 22:55:37 -0400 Message-ID: <20080416025537.GA7878@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <9b3e2dc20804150951scf8b3c7x26f3a56eab1f9840@mail.gmail.com> <7vej97x78v.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: Junio C Hamano , Brian Gernhardt , Russ Dill , Stephen Sinclair , git@vger.kernel.org To: Jakub Narebski X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Apr 16 07:52:01 2008 connect(): Connection refused Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1Jlxov-00034H-Rg for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Wed, 16 Apr 2008 04:56:26 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753544AbYDPCzk (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Apr 2008 22:55:40 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753104AbYDPCzk (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Apr 2008 22:55:40 -0400 Received: from [208.65.91.99] ([208.65.91.99]:4579 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-FAIL-FAIL-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751305AbYDPCzk (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Apr 2008 22:55:40 -0400 Received: (qmail 5441 invoked by uid 111); 16 Apr 2008 02:55:38 -0000 Received: from sigill.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.7) (smtp-auth username relayok, mechanism cram-md5) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.32) with ESMTP; Tue, 15 Apr 2008 22:55:38 -0400 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Tue, 15 Apr 2008 22:55:37 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 06:33:48PM -0700, Jakub Narebski wrote: > Please, let's don't repeat Mercurial mistake of placing unversioned > information (such as branch names in case of Mercurial, or branches > descriptions in this case) in-tree, i.e. version it. Think of what > would happen if you reset to the state (or checkout to some branch > with the state) which is before some branch was created, or before > some branch got description. Mercurial deals with this using > "special" not lika in-tree treatment of such a file... I don't think > it is a good idea. I think that is a reasonable argument. > I think it wouldb be better to put branches descriptions somewhere > outside object repository, be it .git/info/ref_names of .git/config. But you make a jump in logic here when you make the alternative to put it outside the object repository. Your first point argues against versioning meta-information _along with the rest of the state_, but there's no reason it can't be versioned separately (e.g., in another branch that just has such meta-info). -Peff