>>> "DR" == Dan Rosen <dro...@ucar.edu> writes: > 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? Sorry to jump into an ongoing discussion, (and I don't want to start a flamewar) but just to understand what you propose: Isn't it what you are proposing, what mercurial would call a «named branch»? Just to recall what that is: it is branch in which every commit belonging to that branch posses the same meta information (TAG). That gives more information than a git branch. The downside to this approach is, that it is impossible to delete a branch (that why there are now topics, basically named branches that can be «deleted») Moreover, having a lot of named branches might slow down things (although I don't have really hard data, my only experience is based on git repositories that have been converted to mercurial and to which later named branches have been added Regards Uwe Brauer -- 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/87lespo64b.fsf%40mat.ucm.es.
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
