From: Mike Hommey Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 05:55:08 GMT Subject: Re: branch description Message-ID: <20080416055508.GA28725@glandium.org> In-Reply-To: <9b3e2dc20804152028s571ea2edm3cdbac7db57e6d8d@mail.gmail.com> On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 11:28:49PM -0400, Stephen Sinclair wrote: > On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 9:33 PM, Jakub Narebski wrote: > > (such as branch names in case of Mercurial, or branches > > descriptions in this case) > > This got me thinking... > It's a little crazy, but: since branch descriptions would essentially > just be an extension of the branch name, play basically the same role > and have the same requirements for storage, cloning, etc., what about > using some syntax in the branch name itself to separate a "short name" > and a "long name".. > > That is, you could store it as, > refs/heads/wip:work_in_progress Why not simply add the text after the sha1 in the refs/heads/branch_name file ? Obviously current and older git code should be checked to know whether they could cope with the extra data without failing... This would also have the advantage that renaming the branch would not lose the description. Mike