Hi Phillip, On Thu, 31 Oct 2019, Phillip Wood wrote: > On 31/10/2019 10:22, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > > > > On Thu, 31 Oct 2019, Jeff King wrote: > > > > > On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 03:43:28PM -0700, Denton Liu wrote: > > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 04:28:35PM -0400, Jeff King wrote: > > > > Dscho brought up in the GGG thread[1] that perhaps we want to treat > > > > branch descriptions like notes and have them all under something like > > > > `refs/notes/branches`. This would certainly solve my problem of > > > > having versioned descriptions and it would probably do it in a much more > > > > general way than having a versioned included config. > > > > > > > > Anyone see any potential problems with this approach? > > > > > > I don't think it would be `refs/notes/`, as that is assumed to contain > > > mappings of object ids (and if I understand correctly, this would be a > > > mapping of branch names to data. > > > > > > You could just have "refs/meta/descriptions/foo" pointing to a blob > > > which contains the description of "refs/heads/foo". That makes it easy > > > to edit descriptions, even if you don't like using "git branch > > > --edit-description". > > > > The only problem with this is that it's not really versioned, as it > > would be hard to go back to previous versions and/or share the history > > via pushing to a remote repository. > > > > But I guess that a very simple pseudo branch would do it, where > > `refs/meta/<branch-name>` would point to a commit that has a tree > > with a single file in it: `description.txt`. > > Having some way to share branch metadata would be nice. I like the idea of > using commits so we can merge changes and revert to a previous version. There > is some previous discussion here [1]. I'd really like to be able to share the > upstream for a branch between two computers as well. I also use a commit > containing a tree with a single file stored at refs/todo/<branch> (and fetched > to refs/remote/<remote>/todo/<branch>) to share todo lists with notes and > ideas for future commits on branches that I'm working on on more than one > machine. Having them version controlled so they can be merged has been useful. And while we're dreaming: it would be nice to discern between "push upstreams" and "base upstreams". Example: when I work on the `fix-t5516-flakiness` branch, I target `upstream/master`, but I push to `dscho`, i.e. my "push upstream" is `dscho/fix-t5516-flakiness`. Ciao, Dscho > Best Wishes > > Phillip > > [1] https://public-inbox.org/git/1519324188.6391.156.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ > > > > I now like that idea a lot better than my original notes idea. > > > > Ciao, > > Dscho > > > > > > > > You could also have "refs/meta/descriptions" to point to a _single_ blob > > > with all of the descriptions. It could even be in the existing config > > > format. And then you could include it with "[include] blob = ...". That > > > doesn't exist yet, but it would be easy to add (it was something I had > > > always considered when writing the config-include code, but there was > > > never really a good use; and you do have to be careful about pointing to > > > untrusted blobs). That's a convoluted way to get where you want, but I > > > wonder if integrating to the existing config system would have any > > > benefits. I haven't really thought it through. > > > > > > (Of course that's also only one step away from having a versioned config > > > file in your .git directory, but it might possibly be a bit easier to > > > manage, since it would always be committed). > > > > > > That's mostly off-the-top-of-my-head rambling, so please disregard > > > anything that seems totally off-base. :) > > > > > > -Peff > > > > >
