From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: Use case (was Re: Should branches be objects?) Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2014 10:42:49 -0700 Message-ID: References: <20140624110932.GI14887@thunk.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: "Theodore Ts'o" , Jonathan Nieder , git discussion list , Ronnie Sahlberg To: Nico Williams X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Jun 25 19:43:06 2014 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 1WzrDo-0004I7-70 for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Wed, 25 Jun 2014 19:43:00 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757847AbaFYRm4 (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 Jun 2014 13:42:56 -0400 Received: from smtp.pobox.com ([208.72.237.35]:51341 "EHLO smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757769AbaFYRm4 (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 Jun 2014 13:42:56 -0400 Received: from smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp0.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1847420947; Wed, 25 Jun 2014 13:42:49 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=GoHIGAzby7ZwVYkuHlQgHoJdPfQ=; b=ZXxSTA QWLz7JIxLZ3uftpAHuZHWOvFE/NFz4pjGf+GVfcj4nFoJK30+LwEO9ltmEkoVR7/ 0fCXfqxpcE41hkWJGuatsCb4ARDp3NsDieueiERZWR3/wUgsy7jcDG3pdqZPhg36 gVAZeG8LlzBFLrxLsO+vKkyV3kQ15lej21wf8= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=Un6mJHPy7r6at12PYynpdLF7u7qU0cEh jfxFLUhPd0A9LkMpbVTtSas3OY+2t2nI4HcD10WfDCibkQUqOAJ+LzsleYWSGjbw QvpCeqOseYB0fyg6xs/8flhpMtnLfyWjyrraAX5Bv2M9Br6YN54dp/pOXaRDFbmN yhLs7yJW9iQ= Received: from pb-smtp0.int.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp0.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0CB8420945; Wed, 25 Jun 2014 13:42:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [72.14.226.9]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp0.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 37A8E20935; Wed, 25 Jun 2014 13:42:44 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: (Nico Williams's message of "Wed, 25 Jun 2014 00:29:50 -0500") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.3 (gnu/linux) X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 1CF333CC-FC90-11E3-BE8B-9903E9FBB39C-77302942!pb-smtp0.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Nico Williams writes: > On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 6:09 AM, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > ... >> This seems pretty close to what we have with signed tags. When I send >> a pull request to Linus, I create a signed tag which createscontains a >> message about a set of commits, and this message is automatically >> included in the pull request message generated with "git >> request-pull", and when Linus merges my pull request, the >> cryptographically signed tag, along with the message, date of the >> signature, etc., is preserved for all posterity. > > Thanks for pointing this out. Signed tags are objects -- that's a > clear and strong precedent.. Sounds as if you are interpreting what Ted said as a supporting argument for having branches as separate type of objects, but the way I read it was "signed tags are sufficient for what you want to do; adding a new "branch" type does not make much sense at this point".