From: Petr Baudis Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 20:31:22 GMT Subject: Re: History messup Message-ID: <20050511203122.GD22686@pasky.ji.cz> In-Reply-To: <1115665598.12012.422.camel@baythorne.infradead.org> Dear diary, on Mon, May 09, 2005 at 09:06:38PM CEST, I got a letter where David Woodhouse told me that... > On Mon, 2005-05-09 at 12:01 -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > > Seems like a UUID or a SHA-1 identifier would be better. > > > > However, one can definitely argue that even the meaning of "a > > repository" isn't well-defined in the context of git. > > Of course it isn't. But neither is the meaning "a committer" or > "an author" or even "a date". > > Including some kind of repo-specific identifier with each commit would > help us to make sense of the history, just as those other fields do. FWIW, I recently added .git/branch-name to Cogito, since I needed some identifier through which to differentiate between the branches (repositories - it's all blurred in Cogito view) when sending commits to CIA. It is strictly per-branch (never to be shared by multiple repositories), optional, informative and more of a temporary solution for now I had to cook together in a minute. -- Petr "Pasky" Baudis Stuff: http://pasky.or.cz/ C++: an octopus made by nailing extra legs onto a dog. -- Steve Taylor