Re: branch description
- From
Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
- Date
- Apr 16, 2008, 02:55 UTC
- Message-ID
- <20080416025537.GA7878@sigill.intra.peff.net>
- In-Reply-To
- <m3abjushvs.fsf@localhost.localdomain>
On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 06:33:48PM -0700, Jakub Narebski wrote:
Show 8 quoted lines
> Please, let's don't repeat Mercurial mistake of placing unversioned > information (such as branch names in case of Mercurial, or branches > descriptions in this case) in-tree, i.e. version it. Think of what > would happen if you reset to the state (or checkout to some branch > with the state) which is before some branch was created, or before > some branch got description. Mercurial deals with this using > "special" not lika in-tree treatment of such a file... I don't think > it is a good idea.
I think that is a reasonable argument.
> I think it wouldb be better to put branches descriptions somewhere > outside object repository, be it .git/info/ref_names of .git/config.
But you make a jump in logic here when you make the alternative to put it outside the object repository. Your first point argues against versioning meta-information _along with the rest of the state_, but there's no reason it can't be versioned separately (e.g., in another branch that just has such meta-info).
-Peff