On 28 September 2011 14:23, Michael Haggerty <mhagger@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: [snip] > > [1] If the retention of annotation history were considered a > requirement, the annotation object could record as a "parent" the object > name of the annotation object that it is succeeding. But I don't think > that this is a good idea; it would make branches too heavyweight and > every branch update would be recorded permanently, both of which are > contrary to the git philosophy. If this was required, a better way would be to update the parent object only if the description changed. You would then have a nice little DAG that records changes to the description and could be used in 3-way merges etc. You would of course get lots of 'dead' annotation objects pointing to the previous change, however that shouldn't be too much of an issue. At this point, however, I ask how is an annotation object any different to placing an annotation file in our repository. Perhaps there is no difference, except that one is a convention and the other is provided. Regards, Andrew -- 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