Re: Use case (was Re: Should branches be objects?)

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Jun 25, 2014, 17:42 UTC
Message-ID: <xmqqegycans6.fsf@gitster.dls.corp.google.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAK3OfOgb3zt0HKkeQKfMR9u7sKRzjCZAeOQh=qSyt9cVordG4A@mail.gmail.com>

Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com> writes:

Show 12 quoted lines

> On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 6:09 AM, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu> wrote:
> ...
>> This seems pretty close to what we have with signed tags.  When I send
>> a pull request to Linus, I create a signed tag which createscontains a
>> message about a set of commits, and this message is automatically
>> included in the pull request message generated with "git
>> request-pull", and when Linus merges my pull request, the
>> cryptographically signed tag, along with the message, date of the
>> signature, etc., is preserved for all posterity.
>
> Thanks for pointing this out.  Signed tags are objects -- that's a
> clear and strong precedent..

Sounds as if you are interpreting what Ted said as a supporting argument for having branches as separate type of objects, but the way I read it was "signed tags are sufficient for what you want to do; adding a new "branch" type does not make much sense at this point".