From: Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com
Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2013 7:08 PM
[catching up on old emails]
Ed Hutchins e...@demeterr.com writes:
I'm not trying to change the way git does things (which works
perfectly
well), I'm asking for some extra information to be added to the
commit
so that
Ed Hutchins e...@demeterr.com writes:
I realize that branch names are ephemeral repo-specific things, but it
would be really useful to be able to determine what branch a commit
was authored from (as a hint to ancestry graph layout tools, for
example). Is there any way to do this currently, is
I'm not trying to change the way git does things (which works perfectly
well), I'm asking for some extra information to be added to the commit
so that analysis of the ancestry graph can be tied to the branch topics
that the original author was working from. Currently if you have a
On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 10:34 PM, Ed Hutchins e...@demeterr.com wrote:
On the other hand
trying to figure
out the history of events from a large directed graph of commits
without any clue about
what topics first spawned each commit is actively harmful in many
cases (trying to display
a clear
I might be able to switch our corporate workflow to adding non-ff merge
commits, but the reason we moved away from using github's big red button
in the first place was to avoid the extra noise of merge-only commits.
Actually you've pointed out an inconsistency: why is it okay for merge
commits to
Ed Hutchins e...@demeterr.com writes:
I'm not trying to change the way git does things (which works perfectly
well), I'm asking for some extra information to be added to the commit
so that analysis of the ancestry graph can be tied to the branch topics
that the original author was working
Ed Hutchins e...@demeterr.com writes:
I might be able to switch our corporate workflow to adding non-ff merge
commits, but the reason we moved away from using github's big red button
in the first place was to avoid the extra noise of merge-only commits.
Actually you've pointed out an
On 4 July 2013 09:46, Jakub Narebski jna...@gmail.com wrote:
Junio C Hamano gitster at pobox.com writes:
It is not just misleading but is actively wrong to recording the
name of the original branch in commits and carrying them forward via
rebase. If you want a record of what a group of commits
I realize that branch names are ephemeral repo-specific things, but it
would be really useful to be able to determine what branch a commit
was authored from (as a hint to ancestry graph layout tools, for
example). Is there any way to do this currently, is it planned, or
would it be deemed useful
On Tue, Jul 02, 2013 at 12:37:13PM -0700, Ed Hutchins wrote:
I realize that branch names are ephemeral repo-specific things, but it
would be really useful to be able to determine what branch a commit
was authored from (as a hint to ancestry graph layout tools, for
example). Is there any way to
Ed Hutchins e...@demeterr.com writes:
I realize that branch names are ephemeral repo-specific things, but it
would be really useful to be able to determine what branch a commit
was authored from (as a hint to ancestry graph layout tools, for
example).
Hmm. I think the current thinking so
On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 9:37 PM, Ed Hutchins e...@demeterr.com wrote:
I realize that branch names are ephemeral repo-specific things, but it
would be really useful to be able to determine what branch a commit
was authored from (as a hint to ancestry graph layout tools, for
example). Is there
I'm not sure I follow how it could be actively harmful? I would think
the author branch
nomenclature (as opposed to just calling it branch) along with clear
documentation
that these values are just captures of the particular state the commit
was authored
from would more than assuage any potential
13 matches
Mail list logo
