On Wed Dec 11, 2024 at 18:34, Justin Tobler <jltobler@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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. I haven't really looked into how this could be implemented, but somehow you'd need to map the branch's name to the object for sure. I just thought it would help if the user facing part would be similar to notes, maybe even the same command just with the --branch flag to tell note that the branch name should not be resolved to a commit first and then to the note, but rather the name directly to a special "branch note".
