On Sun, Jun 03, 2007 at 08:59:18AM -0400, Michael Poole wrote: > Pierre Habouzit writes: > > > The other problem I see is that at the time a bug gets reported, the > > user knows it's found at a commit say 'X'. But it could in fact have > > been generated at a commit Y, with this pattern: > > > > --o---o---Y---o---o---o---o---X---o---o--> master > > \ > > o---o---o---o---o---o--> branch B > > Mainly for that reason, I would suggest having it outside the code > base's namespace: probably a different root in the same $GIT_DIR, but > I can see people wanting to have a separate $GIT_DIR. If the database > tracks bugs by what commit(s) introduce or expose the bug -- at least > once that is known -- then you get nearly free tracking of which > branches have the bug without having to check out largely redundant > trees. Sure, but if it's completely out-of-tree, then cloning a repository don't allow you to get the bug databases with it for free. I mean it'd be great to have it somehow linked to the repository, but also I agree that not everybody wants to clone the whole bugs databases. So maybe it should just be in another shadow branch that annotates the devel ones. Hmmm I definitely need to read the git-note thread... -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O madcoder@xxxxxxxxxx OOO http://www.madism.org
Attachment:
pgpHom5sYDKUg.pgp
Description: PGP signature
