On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 02:44:49PM +0100, Jelmer Vernooij wrote: > On Mon, 2010-02-22 at 16:08 +0300, Dmitry Potapov wrote: > > I am not sure that the commit object is the right place to store that > > metadata, but hidding this information is even more problematic. Let's > > suppose that someone cherry-pick your Bazaar originated commit. Now when > > you try to synchronize with Bazaar, your synchronizer will see that it > > has some Bazaar revision ID and branch name, but, in fact, it is new > > commit on a completely different branch... > I don't see how the fact that the bzr-git/hg-git data is being hidden is > the problem in the scenario you mention. Because you can easily remove that information manually when you cherry-pick some commit. It is more difficult to do when it is hidden. > It'd be nice if this sort of information was discarded by "git rebase", > but that's another good reason to treat it in a different way from the > commit message instead. Well, I do not see any other place in the commit object aside the commit message where you can easily put information, and I do not think it is a good idea for "git rebase" to edit the commit message automatically. Maybe, you should look at git-notes. (I don't know enough about them to tell whether they are suitable or not). Dmitry -- 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