On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 03:56:51PM +0200, B Smith-Mannschott wrote: > >> What do others think about this? Would this be useful > >> for others, too? > > > > This feature is already being worked on as "git notes" -- see the "pu" > > branch, I think it's still in there, unless it has graduated to next; > > I forget now. > > Really? I was under the impression that the nodes were meant to > annotate commits, or more generally things with SHA-1 IDs. (commits, > tress, blobs). The SHA-1 ID a branch uses to refer to its HEAD commit > changes with every commit, and the branch itself doesn't have an ID, > just a name. Yes, I think you are right. If I understand the OP, he really just wants to annotate the refs themselves, not the commits they point to. So you could probably get away with setting a "branch.$name.description" config variable and then showing it during "git branch". The downside of such a scheme is that it is purely local -- there's no way of pushing or pulling your descriptions (which is maybe a feature, if you are thinking of the descriptions as something only for you yourself to see). A related technique is to maintain a separate meta repository which has a list of branches, their status, etc. This is what Junio does with the 'todo' branch of git.git. The advantage is that it is fully version controlled, and you can do much more than just set descriptions (e.g., 'todo' also has scripts for maintaining the list of topic branches, calculating branch dependencies, building the pu branch, etc). The disadvantage is that it's a lot more work to set up and maintain. -Peff -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html