# [RFC] just an (stupid) idea when creating a new branch 12 messages from 2006-07-08 to 2006-07-09. Participants: moreau francis, Jakub Narebski, Johannes Schindelin, Pavel Roskin, Marco Costalba, Junio C Hamano, Petr Baudis. Thread: https://gitlist.dev/t/4805 ## moreau francis, 2006-07-08 15:55 Subject: [RFC] just an (stupid) idea when creating a new branch Message-ID: <20060708155547.73054.qmail@web25814.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/20060708155547.73054.qmail%40web25814.mail.ukl.yahoo.com ``` Hi GIT folks. I'm a complete newbie on git development so excuse me if this idea is completely stupid. Would it be possible to let the user stick a short explanation on what a branch is supposed to implement during its creation. That is $ git branch --topic "Implement a killer feature \ > This set of patches add the foo feature to GIT" mybranch master Then it would be possible with another command to consult this topic after a while. And even more useful, when generating the patch set with the following git command $ git-format-patch -n HEAD master it uses the topic branch to generate as first patch a summary of the patch serie. That is """ Subject: [PATCH 0/n] Implement a killer feature This This set of patches add the foo feature to GIT. """ Is it useless ? Thanks Francis ``` ## Jakub Narebski, 2006-07-08 21:41 Subject: Re: [RFC] just an (stupid) idea when creating a new branch Message-ID: URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/e8p8pj%24jk3%242%40sea.gmane.org In-Reply-To: <20060708155547.73054.qmail@web25814.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> ``` moreau francis wrote: > Hi GIT folks. > > I'm a complete newbie on git development so excuse me if > this idea is completely stupid. > > Would it be possible to let the user stick a short explanation > on what a branch is supposed to implement during its creation. It would be possible when/if branch and remotes config would migrate to .git/config. Currently too many I think relies on refs/heads being simple sha1 of "top" commit. -- Jakub Narebski Warsaw, Poland ShadeHawk on #git ``` ## Johannes Schindelin, 2006-07-08 22:15 Subject: Re: [RFC] just an (stupid) idea when creating a new branch Message-ID: URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/Pine.LNX.4.63.0607090011000.29667%40wbgn013.biozentrum.uni-wuerzburg.de In-Reply-To: ``` Hi, On Sat, 8 Jul 2006, Jakub Narebski wrote: > moreau francis wrote: > > > Hi GIT folks. > > > > I'm a complete newbie on git development so excuse me if > > this idea is completely stupid. > > > > Would it be possible to let the user stick a short explanation > > on what a branch is supposed to implement during its creation. > > It would be possible when/if branch and remotes config would migrate > to .git/config. Currently too many I think relies on refs/heads being > simple sha1 of "top" commit. But it does not need a change of existing practice at all! Just add the information provided by --topic as branch."pathname".description to the config. And make format-patch aware of that. Ciao, Dscho ``` ## Pavel Roskin, 2006-07-09 03:27 Subject: Re: [RFC] just an (stupid) idea when creating a new branch Message-ID: <1152415640.2103.10.camel@dv> URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/1152415640.2103.10.camel%40dv In-Reply-To: <20060708155547.73054.qmail@web25814.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> ``` Hello! On Sat, 2006-07-08 at 15:55 +0000, moreau francis wrote: > Hi GIT folks. > > I'm a complete newbie on git development so excuse me if > this idea is completely stupid. > > Would it be possible to let the user stick a short explanation > on what a branch is supposed to implement during its creation. Just for your information, this is already implemented by StGIT. For instance, .git/patches/master/description contains the description of the "master" branch. If you run "stg branch --list", the branch descriptions will be listed. I'm not aware of any commands to change the description. -- Regards, Pavel Roskin ``` ## Marco Costalba, 2006-07-09 06:54 Subject: Re: [RFC] just an (stupid) idea when creating a new branch Message-ID: URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/e5bfff550607082354g62e99216gc72b07055762de3a%40mail.gmail.com In-Reply-To: ``` On 7/8/06, Jakub Narebski wrote: > moreau francis wrote: > > > Hi GIT folks. > > > > I'm a complete newbie on git development so excuse me if > > this idea is completely stupid. > > > > Would it be possible to let the user stick a short explanation > > on what a branch is supposed to implement during its creation. > > It would be possible when/if branch and remotes config would migrate > to .git/config. Currently too many I think relies on refs/heads being > simple sha1 of "top" commit. > It is possible to add a message (and more) to a tag creating a tag object. FWIK this is not allowed for the other refs. Why there is this (artifical?) difference between tags and the other kind of refs? Marco ``` ## moreau francis, 2006-07-09 09:48 Subject: Re : [RFC] just an (stupid) idea when creating a new branch Message-ID: <20060709094808.74906.qmail@web25811.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/20060709094808.74906.qmail%40web25811.mail.ukl.yahoo.com In-Reply-To: <1152415640.2103.10.camel@dv> ``` > Just for your information, this is already implemented by StGIT. For > instance, .git/patches/master/description contains the description of > the "master" branch. well I'm using plain git for now. And it doesn't seem to be a high level feature. Another point to this would be to show this set of patch and its summary threaded under a mailer. I use thunderbird, and it's possible to use threaded view which is very convinient. I don't know how it works, but see the set of patchs like: [PATCH 0/3] Summary of the set | + [PATCH 1/4] blababla + [PATCH 2/4] another useful commit + [PATCH 3/4] ... would be great ! Francis PS: please CC me when answering. ``` ## Junio C Hamano, 2006-07-09 10:16 Subject: Re: Re : [RFC] just an (stupid) idea when creating a new branch Message-ID: <7v8xn3nkwo.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/7v8xn3nkwo.fsf%40assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net In-Reply-To: <20060709094808.74906.qmail@web25811.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> ``` moreau francis writes: > I don't know how it works, but see the set of > patchs like: > > [PATCH 0/3] Summary of the set > | > + [PATCH 1/4] blababla > + [PATCH 2/4] another useful commit > + [PATCH 3/4] ... > > would be great ! Doing the cover letter is primarily a job of the patch submitter, and I think git-send-email has some support for that. ``` ## Johannes Schindelin, 2006-07-09 14:33 Subject: Re: [RFC] just an (stupid) idea when creating a new branch Message-ID: URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/Pine.LNX.4.63.0607091632070.29667%40wbgn013.biozentrum.uni-wuerzburg.de In-Reply-To: ``` Hi, On Sun, 9 Jul 2006, Marco Costalba wrote: > It is possible to add a message (and more) to a tag creating a tag > object. FWIK this is not allowed for the other refs. > > Why there is this (artifical?) difference between tags and the other > kind of refs? The tag message is nothing else than a commit message. The (artificial-but-on-purpose) difference is that you are not supposed to change a tag ref, whereas a regular ref pointing to a commit is _expected_ to point to some other commit in the future. Ciao, Dscho ``` ## Jakub Narebski, 2006-07-09 17:04 Subject: Re: [RFC] just an (stupid) idea when creating a new branch Message-ID: URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/e8rcu5%24je5%242%40sea.gmane.org In-Reply-To: ``` Johannes Schindelin wrote: > On Sat, 8 Jul 2006, Jakub Narebski wrote: > >> moreau francis wrote: >> >>> Would it be possible to let the user stick a short explanation >>> on what a branch is supposed to implement during its creation. >> >> It would be possible when/if branch and remotes config would migrate >> to .git/config. Currently too many I think relies on refs/heads being >> simple sha1 of "top" commit. > > But it does not need a change of existing practice at all! Just add the > information provided by --topic as branch."pathname".description to the > config. And make format-patch aware of that. And make tools remove stale descriptions. I sometimes rename branches "by hand", as currently there is I think no tool for this... By the way, did this series of patches (adding support for branch and remotes configuretion to config file) made into 'next', 'master' or even 'pu', or after some discussion it stalled? -- Jakub Narebski Warsaw, Poland ShadeHawk on #git ``` ## Johannes Schindelin, 2006-07-09 19:09 Subject: Re: [RFC] just an (stupid) idea when creating a new branch Message-ID: URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/Pine.LNX.4.63.0607092106530.29667%40wbgn013.biozentrum.uni-wuerzburg.de In-Reply-To: ``` Hi, On Sun, 9 Jul 2006, Jakub Narebski wrote: > By the way, did this series of patches (adding support for branch and > remotes configuretion to config file) made into 'next', 'master' or even > 'pu', or after some discussion it stalled? The latter. Some parts are there (the remote configuration made it in AFAIK) but things like the default remote(s) to fetch / push are not. Ciao, Dscho ``` ## Petr Baudis, 2006-07-09 22:01 Subject: Re: [RFC] just an (stupid) idea when creating a new branch Message-ID: <20060709220116.GT29115@pasky.or.cz> URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/20060709220116.GT29115%40pasky.or.cz In-Reply-To: ``` Hi, Dear diary, on Sun, Jul 09, 2006 at 04:33:53PM CEST, I got a letter where Johannes Schindelin said that... > On Sun, 9 Jul 2006, Marco Costalba wrote: > > > It is possible to add a message (and more) to a tag creating a tag > > object. FWIK this is not allowed for the other refs. > > > > Why there is this (artifical?) difference between tags and the other > > kind of refs? > > The tag message is nothing else than a commit message. huh? The tag message is a message in the "freeform" part of the tag object, but disregarding the format similiraties, it has really nothing to do with a commit message. (Also, commit messages don't tend to be commonly PGP signed. ;-) -- Petr "Pasky" Baudis Stuff: http://pasky.or.cz/ Snow falling on Perl. White noise covering line noise. Hides all the bugs too. -- J. Putnam ``` ## Johannes Schindelin, 2006-07-09 22:12 Subject: Re: [RFC] just an (stupid) idea when creating a new branch Message-ID: URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/Pine.LNX.4.63.0607100011060.29667%40wbgn013.biozentrum.uni-wuerzburg.de In-Reply-To: <20060709220116.GT29115@pasky.or.cz> ``` Hi, On Mon, 10 Jul 2006, Petr Baudis wrote: > Hi, > > Dear diary, on Sun, Jul 09, 2006 at 04:33:53PM CEST, I got a letter > where Johannes Schindelin said that... > > On Sun, 9 Jul 2006, Marco Costalba wrote: > > > > > It is possible to add a message (and more) to a tag creating a tag > > > object. FWIK this is not allowed for the other refs. > > > > > > Why there is this (artifical?) difference between tags and the other > > > kind of refs? > > > > The tag message is nothing else than a commit message. > > huh? > > The tag message is a message in the "freeform" part of the tag object, > but disregarding the format similiraties, it has really nothing to do > with a commit message. (Also, commit messages don't tend to be commonly > PGP signed. ;-) Marco was talking about an "artificial difference", which means technical issues. From a technical viewpoint, the tag message is _exactly_ the same as a commit message. Hth, Dscho ```