On Fri, 24 May 2013 11:29:00 +0000, Holger Hellmuth (IKS) wrote:
> Here is an idea (probably already discussed in the long history of git):
> 1) the branch name is recorded in a commit (for merges the branch that 
> is updated)

The branch name is almost completely meaningless. I could just
do my feature in my local master and never have a different name.

Or commit something onto tmp that I then fast-forward into my
(properly named) feature branch.

> 2) unique identifier of repository is recorded in commit (optional)

That is pure noise (in my workflow).

> 3) simple configurable ordering and/or coloring scheme in gitk based on 
> committer,branch name and repo (with wildcards).

Ok, gitk could use some features. :-)

> Is this a bad idea or just no one did it yet?

Possibly not bad (hg does parts of it), but un-git-ish?

(I'm not sure that it was *intended* that the parents
of a merge commit have an order, except that they need
to for deterministic hashes.)


"Totally trivial. Famous last words."
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@*.org>
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 07:29:21 -0800
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