Michael Dressel <MichaelTiloDressel@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Friday 18 April 2008, Jakub Narebski wrote: > > Let me sum up here proposals where to put branch description: > > > > [...] > > what's the opinion of having a new branch object? Actually the tag > object probably already does the job? This would spoil the elegant > light weight current branch references. But tags are not that heavy. > > In this approach the tags would not reference commits but tags. And > tags have annotation. The difference to the normal tags would be that > these tags are referenced from refs/heads/<branch> instead of > refs/tags. > > I have no clue how involved this change would become and if the > benefit would justify the effort. I guess using proper objects for > branches would only be justified if additional advantages could be > achieved. This won't work. With described (annotated) branches, there are two pieces of data associated with a branch: * commit it points to (branch head) * description of a branch Branch head changes frequently (commit, reset, bisect, rebase), while description should change rarely. Those two pieces of data are independent. Tag object would unnecessary join/fuse those two together. Also, for exach commit on a branch, or for each moving of branch ref (reset, amend, bisect), you would have to create tag object, which would accumulate only to be garbage collected some time in the future... -- Jakub Narebski Poland ShadeHawk on #git -- 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
