On Fri, 24 May 2013 11:29:00 +0000, Holger Hellmuth (IKS) wrote: ... > Here is an idea (probably already discussed in the long history of git): > 1) the branch name is recorded in a commit (for merges the branch that > is updated) The branch name is almost completely meaningless. I could just do my feature in my local master and never have a different name. Or commit something onto tmp that I then fast-forward into my (properly named) feature branch. > 2) unique identifier of repository is recorded in commit (optional) That is pure noise (in my workflow). > 3) simple configurable ordering and/or coloring scheme in gitk based on > committer,branch name and repo (with wildcards). Ok, gitk could use some features. :-) ... > Is this a bad idea or just no one did it yet? Possibly not bad (hg does parts of it), but un-git-ish? (I'm not sure that it was *intended* that the parents of a merge commit have an order, except that they need to for deterministic hashes.) Andreas -- "Totally trivial. Famous last words." From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@*.org> Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 07:29:21 -0800 -- 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