From: "Junio C Hamano"
Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2013 7:08 PM
[catching up on old emails]
Ed Hutchins writes:
I'm not trying to change the way git does things (which works
perfectly
well), I'm asking for some extra information to be added to the
commit
so that analysis of the ancestry graph c
On 4 July 2013 09:46, Jakub Narebski wrote:
> Junio C Hamano pobox.com> writes:
>> It is not just misleading but is actively wrong to recording the
>> name of the original branch in commits and carrying them forward via
>> rebase. If you want a record of what a group of commits were about,
>> the
Ed Hutchins writes:
> I might be able to switch our corporate workflow to adding non-ff merge
> commits, but the reason we moved away from using github's big red button
> in the first place was to avoid the extra noise of merge-only commits.
>
> Actually you've pointed out an inconsistency: why i
Ed Hutchins writes:
> I'm not trying to change the way git does things (which works perfectly
> well), I'm asking for some extra information to be added to the commit
> so that analysis of the ancestry graph can be tied to the branch topics
> that the original author was working from. Currently i
I might be able to switch our corporate workflow to adding non-ff merge
commits, but the reason we moved away from using github's big red button
in the first place was to avoid the extra noise of merge-only commits.
Actually you've pointed out an inconsistency: why is it okay for merge
commits to
On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 10:34 PM, Ed Hutchins wrote:
> 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
I'm not trying to change the way git does things (which works perfectly
well), I'm asking for some extra information to be added to the commit
so that analysis of the ancestry graph can be tied to the branch topics
that the original author was working from. Currently if you have a
rebase-branch/ff-
Ed Hutchins 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). Is there any way to do this currently, is it planned, o
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 potenti
On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 9:37 PM, Ed Hutchins wrote:
> 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). Is there any way to do th
Ed Hutchins 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 i
On Tue, Jul 02, 2013 at 12:37:13PM -0700, Ed Hutchins wrote:
> 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). Is there any way
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). Is there any way to do this currently, is it planned, or
would it be deemed useful en
13 matches
Mail list logo
