On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 06:33:48PM -0700, Jakub Narebski wrote: > Please, let's don't repeat Mercurial mistake of placing unversioned > information (such as branch names in case of Mercurial, or branches > descriptions in this case) in-tree, i.e. version it. Think of what > would happen if you reset to the state (or checkout to some branch > with the state) which is before some branch was created, or before > some branch got description. Mercurial deals with this using > "special" not lika in-tree treatment of such a file... I don't think > it is a good idea. I think that is a reasonable argument. > I think it wouldb be better to put branches descriptions somewhere > outside object repository, be it .git/info/ref_names of .git/config. But you make a jump in logic here when you make the alternative to put it outside the object repository. Your first point argues against versioning meta-information _along with the rest of the state_, but there's no reason it can't be versioned separately (e.g., in another branch that just has such meta-info). -Peff -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
