On 21 November 2012 11:13, Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer
<perezme...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ...
> Well, two ideas come to my mind:
> - detect when using git flow (.git/config contains [gitflow "some_branch"]
> entries).

I guess this part is just so the next part can be done automatically?

> - Show "swim-lane"-like graphs, including branches that may not be present,
> but where there (release branches often are created and merged back, for
> example)

I think this could be useful in general, however it might struggle
with already merged branches. I may be mistaken here, however I think
in general there is no way to specify which commits belonged to a
certain branch after they have been merged, as branch information is
not kept in the commit object. There may be some exceptions that make
it feasible at times, but a general solution would be to show any
merged branches as part of the same swim-lane, as per current
behaviour, but to have separate branch heads in different swim-lanes.
This would be a nice feature, and is similar to the behaviour in, for
example, Atlassian's Fisheye repository viewer and the GitHub network


Andrew Ardill
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Reply via email to