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 misuse. 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 history of who did what for what reasons, for example).
On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 1:00 PM, Junio C Hamano <gits...@pobox.com> wrote: > 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 far is that it is harmful to > engrave that information in the commit object, exactly for the > reason you stated upfront: these names are local in the repository > the commit was created, and do not have any global meaning. > >> Is there any way to do this currently, is it planned, or >> would it be deemed useful enough to be worth adding to each commit >> object? > > No, no, and no, not because it is not just useful enough but it may > be actively harmful. -- 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