Subject: Re: [RFC] [PATCH 0/5] Implement 'prior' commit object links (and other commit links ideas)

From: Jakub Narebski <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 21:00:48 +0200

Linus Torvalds wrote:

> 
> 
> On Tue, 25 Apr 2006, Jakub Narebski wrote:
>> 
>> Additionally, in "related" links we require that object exist (core git),
>> regardless of detailed semantics.

And history browsers (gitk, qgit) can use it, drawing line, regardless of
semantics.

> And as I've now mentioned a hundred times, that's just unacceptable to me.
> No suggested use of this has actually been useful, that I can tell.

I don't mean we shouldn't define semantic for each use of "related" or
"note" header. Just like email X-* headres have detailed form and semantic
(long, long time ago Sender was X-Sender for example ;-). It's just a
toolkit.

As to suggested "related" (requiring object to exists) headers: "bind",
"prior", and perhaps "revert".

-- 
Jakub Narebski
Warsaw, Poland