Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Wed, 10 Sep 2008, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > > Sure. I don't use them either. But because I don't use them, it doesn't > > affect me. It also doesn't change the core git data structures in any way > > to introduce any new problems. > > Btw, so far nobody has even _explained_ what the advantage of the origin > link is. It apparently has no effect for most things, and for other things > it has some (unspecified) effect when it can be resolved. > > Apart from the "dotted line" in graphical history viewers, I haven't > actually heard any single concrete example of exactly what it would *do*. > > And that dotted line really does sound like something you could do with > just the existing "hyperlink" functionality in the commit message. As far as I understand (note: I'm neither for, nor against the proposal; although I think it has thin chance to be accepted, especially soon), it is for graphical history viewers, for git-cherry to make it more precise (to detect duplicated/cherry-picked changes better), and in the future possibly to help history-aware merge strategies. And probably help patch management interfaces. On the theoretical front it looks like extension/generalization of a parent link, marking given commit do be derivative not only some set of trees, or some line of history, but also on some changeset. -- 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
