From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Linus Torvalds Subject: Re: [RFC] [PATCH 0/5] Implement 'prior' commit object links (and other commit links ideas) Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 12:09:33 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: References: <20060425035421.18382.51677.stgit@localhost.localdomain> <7v7j5e2jv7.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> <7vr73lwkdt.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Cc: git@vger.kernel.org X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue Apr 25 21:09:48 2006 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FYSut-0002Sz-T8 for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Tue, 25 Apr 2006 21:09:44 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932181AbWDYTJk (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 Apr 2006 15:09:40 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751352AbWDYTJk (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 Apr 2006 15:09:40 -0400 Received: from smtp.osdl.org ([65.172.181.4]:967 "EHLO smtp.osdl.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751267AbWDYTJj (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 Apr 2006 15:09:39 -0400 Received: from shell0.pdx.osdl.net (fw.osdl.org [65.172.181.6]) by smtp.osdl.org (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id k3PJ9YtH019858 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO); Tue, 25 Apr 2006 12:09:34 -0700 Received: from localhost (shell0.pdx.osdl.net [10.9.0.31]) by shell0.pdx.osdl.net (8.13.1/8.11.6) with ESMTP id k3PJ9XHQ001497; Tue, 25 Apr 2006 12:09:33 -0700 To: Junio C Hamano In-Reply-To: <7vr73lwkdt.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0 required=5 tests= X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63-osdl_revision__1.74__ X-MIMEDefang-Filter: osdl$Revision: 1.134 $ X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.36 Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Tue, 25 Apr 2006, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > Actually, it does help Porcelain to be able to mark unrelated > crud as 'note'. A "note" header that explicitly has no meaning _what-so-ever_ for git would be fine. Then the semantics are well-defined, and they really do boil down to: random strings that git will ignore, and that won't normally be shown by "git log". Those are actually real semantics, the same way the current "content" is real semantics: we don't care about it at all, and we _guarantee_ that we don't care about it. The problem with the proposed "related" thing was that it was somethign that git was supposed to care about, but since it had no sane semantics, there was no way to _make_ git care about it sanely. That was the problem. So I'm not objecting to adding headers. I'm objecting to adding headers that have insane or badly defined semantics where we might be asked to do something for them and different versions of git migth do different things. Linus