Re: Topic descriptions

From: Robin Rosenberg <robin.rosenberg.lists@dewire.com>
Date: Dec 7, 2006, 10:45 UTC
Message-ID: <200612071145.59071.robin.rosenberg.lists@dewire.com>
In-Reply-To: <200612070837.16412.andyparkins@gmail.com>

torsdag 07 december 2006 09:37 skrev Andy Parkins:

Show 12 quoted lines

> On Wednesday 2006, December 06 22:31, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> > I am unlikely to use such a thing for the "What's in" message,
> > though.  The part that talks about "what the current status is"
> > is much easier to write when I need to talk about "the current";
> > otherwise I'd be forced to remember to think if I need to update
> > the information, every time I touch topic branches.
>
> It wasn't so much the what's current - as you say that would be fairly
> ridiculous as it's so fluid.  It was more a description of the topic.  I've
> got tonnes of branches where I have quickly thought of an idea and started
> work on it, only to get bored and move on.  Describing a topic in such a
> short space as "ap/short-name" is hard.

Your situation sounds similiar to mine, but I don't use regular git branches much. Rather I use stacked git instead. Stgit's patches can be though of as virtual branches. Instead of creating a dozen branches I have a dozen commits managed by stgit that I can choose from (and combine) easily, creating and destroying private "branches".