Re: first parent, commit graph layout, and pull merge direction

From: Andreas Krey <a.krey@gmx.de>
To: "Holger Hellmuth (IKS)" <hellmuth@ira.uka.de>
Cc: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>, git@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: first parent, commit graph layout, and pull merge direction
Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 15:42:14 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20130524134214.GA26617@inner.h.apk.li> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <519F32DC.0@ira.uka.de>

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.)

Andreas

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