From: Stephen Sinclair <radarsat1@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 03:28:49 GMT
Subject: Re: branch description
Message-ID: <9b3e2dc20804152028s571ea2edm3cdbac7db57e6d8d@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <m3abjushvs.fsf@localhost.localdomain>

On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 9:33 PM, Jakub Narebski <jnareb@gmail.com> 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

and git-branch would report,

wip

while git-branch --long would report the long names,

wip:work_in_progress

or could parse it to something more legible:

wip     "Work in progress"

Of course this would require modification to refspec-related code,
which is likely more work than it's worth..
Hm, well just an idea anyways.  Probably not a good idea to save
meta-data in a filename.


Steve