Re: first parent, commit graph layout, and pull merge direction
- From
Andreas Krey <a.krey@gmx.de>
- Date
- May 24, 2013, 13:42 UTC
- Message-ID
- <20130524134214.GA26617@inner.h.apk.li>
- In-Reply-To
- <519F32DC.0@ira.uka.de>
On Fri, 24 May 2013 11:29:00 +0000, Holger Hellmuth (IKS) wrote: ...
> Here is an idea (probably already discussed in the long history of git): > 1) the branch name is recorded in a commit (for merges the branch that > is updated)
The branch name is almost completely meaningless. I could just do my feature in my local master and never have a different name.
Or commit something onto tmp that I then fast-forward into my (properly named) feature branch.
> 2) unique identifier of repository is recorded in commit (optional)
That is pure noise (in my workflow).
> 3) simple configurable ordering and/or coloring scheme in gitk based on > committer,branch name and repo (with wildcards).
Ok, gitk could use some features. :-)
...
> Is this a bad idea or just no one did it yet?
Possibly not bad (hg does parts of it), but un-git-ish?
(I'm not sure that it was *intended* that the parents of a merge commit have an order, except that they need to for deterministic hashes.)
Andreas
-- "Totally trivial. Famous last words." From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@*.org> Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 07:29:21 -0800