From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jonathan Nieder Subject: Re: [PATCH] fmt-merge-msg: use branch.$name.description Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2011 05:06:46 -0500 Message-ID: <20111007100646.GA23193@elie.hsd1.il.comcast.net> References: <7vobxtwaog.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> <4E8EBDA7.2040007@drmicha.warpmail.net> <20111007091636.GA22822@elie.hsd1.il.comcast.net> <4E8ECA25.205@drmicha.warpmail.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Junio C Hamano , git@vger.kernel.org, Jeff King To: Michael J Gruber X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Fri Oct 07 12:07:07 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RC7Ka-0003d7-IR for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Fri, 07 Oct 2011 12:07:04 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1759650Ab1JGKG7 (ORCPT ); Fri, 7 Oct 2011 06:06:59 -0400 Received: from mail-iy0-f174.google.com ([209.85.210.174]:50025 "EHLO mail-iy0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752039Ab1JGKG6 (ORCPT ); Fri, 7 Oct 2011 06:06:58 -0400 Received: by iakk32 with SMTP id k32so4028648iak.19 for ; Fri, 07 Oct 2011 03:06:58 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=Rn9TknSkDlJ7N0kwoMMet6slnVR9vjO35gViy/YOwck=; b=gRIu7Qa8dwRmhIjDYulbRtNzO6KYJvupLUreZPJbR2CBU7KUL2oLBDiYb4GLpfdIZi NECgMOruJ/n6yZU3rbyNAvZ+qKBQzm47NFYKyQ3+MzqH7plAMDuKJlXHDDfbM5Ryqcy7 AGOUpoXYwuhTKYunzacayY9xb4PnB3+puCpW8= Received: by 10.43.130.133 with SMTP id hm5mr11476999icc.11.1317982017932; Fri, 07 Oct 2011 03:06:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from elie.hsd1.il.comcast.net (c-24-1-56-9.hsd1.il.comcast.net. [24.1.56.9]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 2sm18865501ibf.0.2011.10.07.03.06.56 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Fri, 07 Oct 2011 03:06:57 -0700 (PDT) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4E8ECA25.205@drmicha.warpmail.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21+46 (b01d63af6fea) (2011-07-01) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Michael J Gruber wrote: > But my main point here is that we should discuss the pros and cons of > each approach in context (the context of the original thread), and I > haven't heard many pros and cons for either. Ok, here are some thoughts (you can file them under the "pro" or "con" column according to your taste): Branch names are local. The same tip commit can belong to multiple branches, which would make using the tip commit as a key for the branch description problematic. I don't think git notes are a good fit for this purpose. I personally would prefer my branch descriptions to be non-versioned, though I realize that is a matter of taste. Some other information about a branch (such as which upstream branch it pulls from) is stored in the [branch ""] section of the git configuration, so it makes a certain kind of sense to put the branch description there, too. On the other hand, the possibility of a [branch ""] section in ~/.gitconfig has always been strange, and this is no exception. > I'd be surprised if we changed the protocol just to be able to share > some descriptions, when we have everything we need for sharing refs. The impact of such a protocol change would not have to be as dramatic as you seem to be suggesting. Virtual hosts and peeled ref values were added as backward-compatible extensions to the reference discovery protocol (see Documentation/technical/pack-protocol.txt) which can be taken as examples for inspiration. Here's some discussion of the implementation based on branchname-keyed notes that you mentioned [1]. It is nice to have multiple designs available for trying out, and I hope experience using each reveals potential improvements in the other. [1] http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/181953/focus=182000