From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Michael Haggerty Subject: Re: Fwd: [Survey] Signed push Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2011 12:45:58 +0200 Message-ID: <4E7085E6.3060509@alum.mit.edu> References: <7vaaa8xufi.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Junio C Hamano , git@vger.kernel.org To: Linus Torvalds X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Sep 14 12:46:28 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 1R3mz4-00021V-PN for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Wed, 14 Sep 2011 12:46:27 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756387Ab1INKqT (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Sep 2011 06:46:19 -0400 Received: from einhorn.in-berlin.de ([192.109.42.8]:54362 "EHLO einhorn.in-berlin.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756383Ab1INKqS (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Sep 2011 06:46:18 -0400 X-Envelope-From: mhagger@alum.mit.edu Received: from [192.168.100.152] (ssh.berlin.jpk.com [212.222.128.135]) (authenticated bits=0) by einhorn.in-berlin.de (8.13.6/8.13.6/Debian-1) with ESMTP id p8EAjwIq021165 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 14 Sep 2011 12:45:58 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.2.21) Gecko/20110831 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.13 In-Reply-To: X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang_at_IN-Berlin_e.V. on 192.109.42.8 Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On 09/14/2011 09:06 AM, Linus Torvalds wrote: > So I'm not against signed pushes, but quite frankly, if you add some > per-branch signature, I would argue against it unless that signature > also comes with information that allows us to do a better job of human > communication too. Like a branch description. > > Imagine, for example, than when you do a > > git push -s .. > > git would *require* you to actually write a message about what you are > pushing. And when somebody pulls it, and creates a merge commit, that > explanation would become part of the merge message. The "signature" > part of the "-s" should be thought of as the *much* less interesting > part - that's just a small detail that git can use to verify > something, but it doesn't actually matter for the contents of the > pull. Not like the actual human-readable message would. > > Now *that* would be lovely. No? Instead of "like a branch description", why not implement branch descriptions directly? I wish that one could annotate a branch (e.g., at creation) and have the annotation follow the branch around. This would be a useful place to record *why* you created the branch, your plans for it, etc. The annotation should be modifiable, because often a branch evolves in unforeseen ways during its lifetime. Anybody could read the annotation to get a quick idea of what kind of work is in progress. Such a branch annotation could be used in pull requests, the cover letter of patch series emails, merge commit log messages, etc. Michael -- Michael Haggerty mhagger@alum.mit.edu http://softwareswirl.blogspot.com/