From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Michael Dressel Subject: Re: branch description Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 19:57:36 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; format=flowed; charset=US-ASCII To: git@vger.kernel.org X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue Apr 22 20:27:32 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 1JoNCs-0008Jg-5F for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Tue, 22 Apr 2008 20:27:06 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752926AbYDVS0T (ORCPT ); Tue, 22 Apr 2008 14:26:19 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753877AbYDVS0T (ORCPT ); Tue, 22 Apr 2008 14:26:19 -0400 Received: from mailout11.t-online.de ([194.25.134.85]:42366 "EHLO mailout11.t-online.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753154AbYDVS0S (ORCPT ); Tue, 22 Apr 2008 14:26:18 -0400 X-Greylist: delayed 1692 seconds by postgrey-1.27 at vger.kernel.org; Tue, 22 Apr 2008 14:26:18 EDT Received: from fwd25.aul.t-online.de by mailout11.sul.t-online.de with smtp id 1JoMkm-0004wl-00; Tue, 22 Apr 2008 19:58:04 +0200 Received: from pollux.local (ZqzupeZ1Zh-28gVbcPX+SBSAp5UdjidxGc8r2g3ykdifrb78hsGo5-xmE+CtAiUwwf@[84.163.244.200]) by fwd25.t-online.de with esmtp id 1JoMkP-1Q436W0; Tue, 22 Apr 2008 19:57:41 +0200 X-X-Sender: michael@pollux.milkiway.cos User-Agent: Alpine 1.10 (DEB 962 2008-03-14) X-ID: ZqzupeZ1Zh-28gVbcPX+SBSAp5UdjidxGc8r2g3ykdifrb78hsGo5-xmE+CtAiUwwf X-TOI-MSGID: 39fd6399-904d-4892-a54e-631c4a382912 Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Friday 18 April 2008, Jakub Narebski wrote: > Let me sum up here proposals where to put branch description: what's the opinion of having a new branch object? Actually the tag object probably already does the job? This would spoil the elegant light weight current branch references. But tags are not that heavy. In this approach the tags would not reference commits but tags. And tags have annotation. The difference to the normal tags would be that these tags are referenced from refs/heads/ instead of refs/tags. I have no clue how involved this change would become and if the benefit would justify the effort. I guess using proper objects for branches would only be justified if additional advantages could be achieved. Cheers, Michael