From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Holger Hellmuth (IKS)" Subject: Re: first parent, commit graph layout, and pull merge direction Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 17:05:26 +0200 Message-ID: <519F81B6.4010807@ira.uka.de> References: <20130522115042.GA20649@inner.h.apk.li> <7v4ndukhx0.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> <20130523090657.GB23933@inner.h.apk.li> <20130523192512.GR9448@inner.h.apk.li> <519F32DC.0@ira.uka.de> <20130524134214.GA26617@inner.h.apk.li> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Junio C Hamano , git@vger.kernel.org To: Andreas Krey X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Fri May 24 17:04:40 2013 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1UftXr-0001Id-Pv for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Fri, 24 May 2013 17:04:40 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756427Ab3EXPEd (ORCPT ); Fri, 24 May 2013 11:04:33 -0400 Received: from iramx2.ira.uni-karlsruhe.de ([141.3.10.81]:56834 "EHLO iramx2.ira.uni-karlsruhe.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755266Ab3EXPEc (ORCPT ); Fri, 24 May 2013 11:04:32 -0400 Received: from irams1.ira.uni-karlsruhe.de ([141.3.10.5]) by iramx2.ira.uni-karlsruhe.de with esmtps port 25 id 1UftXX-0006hY-CM; Fri, 24 May 2013 17:04:25 +0200 Received: from i20s141.iaks.uni-karlsruhe.de ([141.3.32.141] helo=[172.16.22.120]) by irams1.ira.uni-karlsruhe.de with esmtpsa port 587 id 1UftXX-00059m-5V; Fri, 24 May 2013 17:04:19 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130329 Thunderbird/17.0.5 In-Reply-To: <20130524134214.GA26617@inner.h.apk.li> X-ATIS-AV: ClamAV (irams1.ira.uni-karlsruhe.de) X-ATIS-AV: Kaspersky (iramx2.ira.uni-karlsruhe.de) X-ATIS-AV: ClamAV (iramx2.ira.uni-karlsruhe.de) X-ATIS-Timestamp: iramx2.ira.uni-karlsruhe.de 1369407865.636284000 Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Am 24.05.2013 15:42, schrieb Andreas Krey: > 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. In which case parent switching in the commit wouldn't help you either. But even you could keep your master always on the left side of gitk if you deem it special. And you could keep longer running cooperative branches (the main develop and the release branch of your project for example) in a seperate lane. Depending on your use of branches many branches won't get any ordering, but at a minimum important branches can easily be "highlighted". > Or commit something onto tmp that I then fast-forward into my > (properly named) feature branch. Yes, but then you would see a feature branch in its expected column in gitk and you would also see (even years later) that it didn't start as a feature but later was made into one. Cues like this help to remember what happened even if you forgot to mention them in the commit message >> 2) unique identifier of repository is recorded in commit (optional) > > That is pure noise (in my workflow). It is important to differentiate between branches of the same name in different repositories. For example if your project has a central repository with master getting all the release stuff you want to sort that master differently than your own master. The unique identifier might be just a random number or string created at init time of the repo. >> 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. :-) Without additional information about the commit history gitk can do exactly what it does now. > ... >> Is this a bad idea or just no one did it yet? > > Possibly not bad (hg does parts of it), but un-git-ish? Don't know. No CVS does branches as good as git. But then it drops that information which depending on development style could be useful or not. Not that useful for people who keep their history clean, a lot for people who don't.