From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Joshua Shrader Subject: Git Notes on Branches Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2010 16:22:48 -0400 Message-ID: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: Joshua Shrader To: Git Mailing List X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Thu Jul 22 22:23:04 2010 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 1Oc2IH-0005Jv-5A for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Thu, 22 Jul 2010 22:23:01 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753250Ab0GVUWu (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 Jul 2010 16:22:50 -0400 Received: from mail-vw0-f46.google.com ([209.85.212.46]:57588 "EHLO mail-vw0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752031Ab0GVUWt (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 Jul 2010 16:22:49 -0400 Received: by vws3 with SMTP id 3so566475vws.19 for ; Thu, 22 Jul 2010 13:22:48 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:received:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=bTLmO8s7eLGoS8S4iL8QGkbDFIScfpihSl1Wdvf0Nrk=; b=BukUWbCXgdlezvNKsYFTWuMdc5e0yS/aIck3YDkfVTpGfpb0Fj34OuAtLafrOtrlaZ I4XdLG3QQ65e01KLqOsREr4/t5NQk7ieqCSodJ57EzwZH3Q0p+M+S9j6WigJ9GA+Y9sO +ReuzA8tGUPLXRzXRt6gBbrnbQTBKlP5+QRUY= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; b=xllHvI4mC777CAhI58C/OUolN3mso/X+dRCp0nvrqQsf9CwnE5rdtHYj8anBpxtAW3 3HAIIL9pKK34amr87l0+kWMnIsV7q4DzRCLsjzQJrCajE+8ccz1Iw/gl/TlVCgyknMEh EhDEP7UB5Jid0/md9DZAUKabEN9wbJ9R1ePfw= Received: by 10.220.60.70 with SMTP id o6mr1023482vch.2.1279830168262; Thu, 22 Jul 2010 13:22:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.220.97.20 with HTTP; Thu, 22 Jul 2010 13:22:48 -0700 (PDT) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: I'm wondering if there is a way to (or a reason that would prevent one from implementing a feature that allows one to) associate a note with a branch, rather than a specific object. It seems like a notes object contains a reference to the object that it annotates: Annotate 4bd93734af... Rather than forcing this to be a SHA1, can the same approaches as taken with HEAD be employed? That is, allow it to be either an object ID, or a local branch? This would essentially define a new use case for notes. Rather than just being used to annotate objects, they could be used to describe a feature branch or a bug fix, for example. Then, when a release is created (from, say, master), a "git branches --merged" will show all merged branches. Assuming the workflow is to develop on well-defined branches, if each of these branches had a description in an attached note, created Release Notes would be a piece of cake. Add a description via "git notes add feat-branch-2" that you want to show up in the Release Notes once the branch is re-integrated. I see a potential problem when working remotely and trying to push the note to origin, but I don't think its insurmountable. Thoughts? Josh