On Wed, 16 April 2008, Johan Herland wrote: [cut that being able to propagate description of branches is a good idea] > However, I do agree that putting branch description inside the working tree > is not the right solution. So far, the best proposal I've seen, is Hommey's > suggestion of storing the description after the sha1 in the ref file itself. > Of course, git would have to be taught (a) to handle ref files with > descriptions, and (b) to propagate descriptions along with refs. (c) find a place for branch descriptions in packed refs. Let me sum up here proposals where to put branch description: 1. Put them in branch.<name>.description in repository config. Not easily (automatically) propagated for dumb transports. 2. Put them in-tree, which is a bad idea because branches are un-versioned (or versioned separately), so branches description should also be un-versioned. 3. Put them in GIT_DIR/info/refs_description, in some format. It makes it very easy to add support for propagation for dumb transports. Native transport probably would need some extension. Should not interfere with the rest of git code. 4. Store description after sha1 in the ref file itself. Automatic propagation for dumb transport (whether we want it or not). Native transport as above. Very high probabily of interfering with the rest of code, especially shell part of Git. Need to find a place for descriptions in pack-refs. 5. Store them as value of 'refs/heads/<branch>' file in a tree for a commit for a special '<description>' separate special branch; at least if I understand this proposal correctly. Something like IIRC the 'notes' / 'annotations' idea was implemented (on git mailing list; it never got into mainline). I think that the best proposal is (3), not (4) as you say. -- Jakub Narebski Poland -- 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
