Re: Fwd: [Survey] Signed push
- From
Johan Herland <johan@herland.net>
- Date
- Sep 14, 2011, 16:14 UTC
- Message-ID
- <201109141814.04752.johan@herland.net>
- In-Reply-To
- <CA+55aFyGRM132OzoJR7wZ8wETvxrFWSmSMjMJnVOKP+6vys-Sw@mail.gmail.com>
On Wednesday 14. September 2011, Linus Torvalds wrote:
Show 17 quoted lines
> On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 4:03 AM, Matthieu Moy > > <Matthieu.Moy@grenoble-inp.fr> wrote: > > Would the notes mechanism be able to annotate ref names instead of > > commit sha1? > > That would be a horrible, horrible notion. > > It's quite common to have multiple branches with the same SHA1. It > might be in the "experimental-development" branch, but it got through > testing with flying colors and deemed to be stable, so it got > upgraded to the "for-linus" branch, and there hasn't been any other > development since. So now both "for-linus" and > "experimental-development" are the same commit, but they are very > much not the same branch! > > So no, don't confuse branch *contents* with branch *descriptions*.
I don't think the suggestion was about annotating the branch tip as a way of describing the branch. Rather, you create a _new_ SHA1 that identifies the branch (e.g. SHA1(branch_name) ), and then annotate _that_ SHA1. As I said, that _can_ be done with the notes infrastructure, but - as Ted noted - there might be better solutions to storing branch descriptions.
...Johan
-- Johan Herland, <johan@herland.net> www.herland.net