Re: [RFC] [PATCH 0/5] Implement 'prior' commit object links (and other commit links ideas)
- From
Jakub Narebski <jnareb@gmail.com>
- Date
- Apr 25, 2006, 19:00 UTC
- Message-ID
- <e2lrk5$ed5$1@sea.gmane.org>
- In-Reply-To
- <Pine.LNX.4.64.0604251151350.3701@g5.osdl.org>
Linus Torvalds wrote:
Show 6 quoted lines
> > > On Tue, 25 Apr 2006, Jakub Narebski wrote: >> >> Additionally, in "related" links we require that object exist (core git), >> regardless of detailed semantics.
And history browsers (gitk, qgit) can use it, drawing line, regardless of semantics.
> And as I've now mentioned a hundred times, that's just unacceptable to me. > No suggested use of this has actually been useful, that I can tell.
I don't mean we shouldn't define semantic for each use of "related" or "note" header. Just like email X-* headres have detailed form and semantic (long, long time ago Sender was X-Sender for example ;-). It's just a toolkit.
As to suggested "related" (requiring object to exists) headers: "bind", "prior", and perhaps "revert".
-- Jakub Narebski Warsaw, Poland