On 24/12/11 11:39AM, Bence Ferdinandy wrote: > Now my problem with the description being a local configuration, is that > I often work on patches on two different computers. I can easily share my patch > notes with myself, but not the branch description. If these could be pushed and > fetched like a note, I think that would open up some other nice possibilities > as well, like having a standard place for MR/PR messages for forges, sharing > proposed merge commit messages, maybe other things. Recently I have started using branch descriptions to store MR/PR messages and using a script to sync it with a forge over its web API. This has got me thinking along the same lines. It would be nice if these descriptions could be part of repository tree is some manner to more easily facilitate distribution. > For my personal issue of sharing branch descriptions with myself, I could > probably just make up a convention for myself, say using refs/notes/branches, > but it would be nice to have this built in, instead of the local config branch > description. > > From usage perspective I could imagine a new `--branch` flag for notes, which > would tell `git notes` to operate on notes attached to branches instead of > specific commits, probably stored under refs/notes/branches by default. Maybe > add an `--edit-branch-note` to `git branch`. And of course have the option to > use this note instead of the description configuration wherever it makes sense. > > What do you think? One problem I see with notes is they all live in a single notes tree and are associated with individual commits. Therefore, I'm not quite sure how a specific note could be correlated with a branch without having a separate notes tree for each branch. Maybe the notes mechanism could be extended to also support storing notes associated directly with a reference in its tree? That might allow for notes to follow a reference as it gets updated. -Justin
