Subject: Re: Topic descriptions

From: Andy Parkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2006 08:37:13 +0000

On Wednesday 2006, December 06 22:31, Junio C Hamano wrote:

> I am unlikely to use such a thing for the "What's in" message,
> though.  The part that talks about "what the current status is"
> is much easier to write when I need to talk about "the current";
> otherwise I'd be forced to remember to think if I need to update
> the information, every time I touch topic branches.

It wasn't so much the what's current - as you say that would be fairly 
ridiculous as it's so fluid.  It was more a description of the topic.  I've 
got tonnes of branches where I have quickly thought of an idea and started 
work on it, only to get bored and move on.  Describing a topic in such a 
short space as "ap/short-name" is hard.

The actual place it's stored isn't really relevant, more that I could see a 
use for it.  If it's going in the config I suppose all it needs is a 
magic "and so it shall be" hand wave.  It doesn't require any new code does 
it?

Andy
-- 
Dr Andrew Parkins, M Eng (Hons), AMIEE