Is there no board of directors to discuss improvements to Git? Modern common practice organizes branches with slashes "/'. "feature/new-feature, bug/bug-fix, etc" but this is a limited way to add meta data to a branch. Tags can have annotations so why can't branches?
Why not have a way to say that branches XYZ and ABC are part of release 3.2.1? Why not have a way to say branch XYZ is a feature (story) and ABC is a bugfix? branch-per-task is a very common git workflow. And branch naming is getting ugly because there are things in the name that shouldn't be. Do what you will with my thoughts... On Monday, July 18, 2022 at 4:34:05 PM UTC-6 philip...@iee.email wrote: > I believe this has been discussed a few times. However branches are meant > to be local and ephemeral, which goes against that 'organise' view that, in > a sense, sees branches as tasks to be controlled. > > Git, being distributed, looks to the code content, along with the DAG, to > get it's perspective on the code. Once a branch has been merged, where > would the meta data go (and who decides)? > > On Monday, July 18, 2022 at 10:34:44 PM UTC+1 dro...@ucar.edu wrote: > >> Adding metadata to branches would be helpful for third party APIs to >> organize and tag branches without putting them in the branch name. For >> example, project management software will use an issue key to search the >> branch name but it would be better to search branch metadata. I know >> branches have descriptions but I believe these are part of the local >> configuration? >> >> - Dan Rosen >> > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Git for human beings" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to git-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/git-users/4e86f4ce-6dda-463c-bb19-0238b4dbbda3n%40googlegroups.com.
