Hi, On Sun, 10 Jun 2007, Johan Herland wrote: > On Sunday 10 June 2007, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > > Maybe you first think A and B are related and then later change your > > mind. Should "softref" relationships be versioned? > > Intriguing idea. Not immediately sure how we would implement it > though... Has my lightweight annotation patch reached you? I like my approach better than yours, because it is 1) a way, way smaller patch, and 2) it automatically includes the versionability. After thinking about it a little more (my plane was slow, and as a result I am allowed to spend 8 more hours in Paris), I think that a small but crucial change would make this thing even more useful: Instead of having "core.showAnnotations" be a boolean config, it might be better to have "core.annotationsRef" instead, overrideable by the environment variable GIT_ANNOTATION_REF. With this, you can have different refs for different kinds of annotations. For example, some people might add bugtracker comments (even comments like "this commit was bad: introduced bug #798, solved by commit 9899fdadc.."). Those comments could live in refs/annotations/bugs. To see them, just say GIT_ANNOTATION_REF=refs/annotations/bugs gitk Voila. I am quite certain that treating annotations as branches, containing fan-out directories for the reverse lookup. I am even quite certain that in most cases, a working-directory-less merging is possible for such annotations. Ciao, Dscho - 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
