On 09/14/2011 09:06 AM, Linus Torvalds wrote: > So I'm not against signed pushes, but quite frankly, if you add some > per-branch signature, I would argue against it unless that signature > also comes with information that allows us to do a better job of human > communication too. Like a branch description. > > Imagine, for example, than when you do a > > git push -s .. > > git would *require* you to actually write a message about what you are > pushing. And when somebody pulls it, and creates a merge commit, that > explanation would become part of the merge message. The "signature" > part of the "-s" should be thought of as the *much* less interesting > part - that's just a small detail that git can use to verify > something, but it doesn't actually matter for the contents of the > pull. Not like the actual human-readable message would. > > Now *that* would be lovely. No? Instead of "like a branch description", why not implement branch descriptions directly? I wish that one could annotate a branch (e.g., at creation) and have the annotation follow the branch around. This would be a useful place to record *why* you created the branch, your plans for it, etc. The annotation should be modifiable, because often a branch evolves in unforeseen ways during its lifetime. Anybody could read the annotation to get a quick idea of what kind of work is in progress. Such a branch annotation could be used in pull requests, the cover letter of patch series emails, merge commit log messages, etc. Michael -- Michael Haggerty mhagger@xxxxxxxxxxxx http://softwareswirl.blogspot.com/ -- 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