On Thu, Oct 31, 2019 at 07:53:18PM +0000, Phillip Wood wrote: > > So how would you envision the workflow for this? Would it be something > > like, > > > > $ git checkout feature-1 > > > > $ git branch --edit-description=ref # instead of =config > > Personally I'd prefer a config setting that meant --edit-description stored > the description in a ref instead of the current config key (or perhaps as > well as so format-patch can just get the latest branch description from the > config key) Yes, a config option makes much more sense to me. Both the writers and readers will need to know where to find the data. > > * Since we're planning on sharing these descriptions with the outside > > world, how would the ref layout look like? If we're not using the > > refs/remotes namespace will it make fetching and merging notes harder? > > I know that collaborating with notes is a pain so how do we avoid > > making the same mistake? > > I'd love to see a consensus around putting remote versions of refs/foo under > refs/remote/<remote-name>/foo. To share notes I add a refspec that fetches > to refs/remote/<remote-name>/notes. It is a pain that 'git pull' wont merge > them for me though. The trouble with that sort of scheme is that it conflicts with the current namespace scheme, which puts the remote "notes" branch in "refs/remotes/<remote-name>/notes". And it's not just a problem if you want to have a branch called "notes". Think about what "git fetch --prune" would do. I do think the world would be a better place if we mapped (all or a subset of) the remote "refs/" into "refs/remotes/<remote-name>/". I.e., really creating "refs/remotes/origin/heads" and even "refs/remotes/origin/tags". But we'd need to re-adjust the way that some ref lookups work (e.g., looking in refs/remotes/*/tags for tags). There was some work by Johan Herland around the v1.8 time-frame, but it stalled: https://public-inbox.org/git/AANLkTi=yFwOAQMHhvLsB1_xmYOE9HHP2YB4H4TQzwwc8@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ And here's some later discussion: https://public-inbox.org/git/CA+P7+xpj+8DZ=K0pna299Mu3nsQ4+JV_JUK=WFzzAFnJN+Bkbg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ So in short, I agree very much with the direction you're discussing, but I think there's some fundamental work that needs done first. -Peff
