On Sun, Jun 10, 2007 at 01:16:45AM +0200, Johan Herland wrote: > On Sunday 10 June 2007, Steven Grimm wrote: > > Being able to specify relationships between commits after the fact seems > > like a very useful facility. > > > > Does it make sense to have type information to record what the > > relationship between two objects means? Without that, it seems like > > it'll be hard to build much of a tool set on top of this feature, since > > no two tools that made use of it could unambiguously query just their > > own softrefs. > > Actually MadCoder/Pierre had a similar idea on IRC. He wanted to separate > softrefs into namespaces, so that softrefs for tags could live in a > different place than softrefs associated with his "gits" bug tracker. > > I haven't thought very much about this, but it's certainly possible to do > something like this. What do the rest of y'all think? Well, if we're two with the same idea, it's a good one, no ? :) In fact, the namespace idea like I told you on IRC isn't _that_ brilliant. But I'm sure recording a softref with: <from_sha> <to_sha> <token> token would help classify the softref. And I'm sure we'll end up with: <from_sha> <to_sha> <token> <flags> with the flags to say what behaviour (e.g.) the reachability resolver should have wrt that link ? -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O madcoder@xxxxxxxxxx OOO http://www.madism.org
Attachment:
pgp4dQUBW9d9L.pgp
Description: PGP signature
