From: Johannes Schindelin Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2005 23:28:56 GMT Subject: Re: [RFC] Applying a graft to a tree and "rippling" the changes through Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <20051117230723.GD26122@nowhere.earth> Hi, On Fri, 18 Nov 2005, Yann Dirson wrote: > Current commit objects refer to a child tree, but to parent _commits_. > Whereas it seems necessary to walk through the history line, and > easily get a changelog, it is semantically quite not right: Yes, it is. You base *your* work on *some* work. So, even if the trees may be equal, the base isn't. > Indeed that emphasizes that the history lines are on living on a > higher level of abstraction that commits. Now what if we used > trees->tree commits, instead of the current commits->tree ones ? Now, how exactly would that be more abstract? Trees are just that: collections of files. Noone tells you what the idea was, which led from the last tree(s) to this one. That is not abstract. > Any genius with a solution out there ? :) Not a genius, but me: Write down your ideas in the commit message. That it the place to put abstract thoughts into. Ciao, Dscho