Stefan Xenos wrote: > Jonathan Nieder wrote: >> putting it in the commit message is a way to >> experiment with the workflow without changing the object format > > As long as we're talking about a temporary state of affairs for users > that have opted in, and we're explicit about the fact that future > versions of git won't understand the change graphs that are produced > during that temporary state of affairs, I'm fine with using the commit > message. We can move it to the header prior to enabling the feature by > default.
Yay! I think that addresses both my and Ævar's concerns. Also, if you run into an issue that requires changing the object format earlier, that's fine and we can handle the situation when it comes. I don't have a strong opinion about whether this would go in the design doc. I suppose the doc could have an "implementation plan" section describing temporary stopping points on the way to the final result, but it's not necessary to include that. Thanks for the quick and thoughtful replies. Jonathan
