←back to thread

577 points Delgan | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.243s | source
Show context
oftenwrong ◴[] No.44347165[source]
Another little-known feature is git trailers:

https://alchemists.io/articles/git_trailers

These are key-value structures data that can be included on a commit when it is created. These are used by some systems for attaching metadata. For example, Gerrit uses this for attaching its Change-Id.

replies(10): >>44347282 #>>44347522 #>>44347679 #>>44347997 #>>44348063 #>>44348331 #>>44348367 #>>44348438 #>>44351063 #>>44352844 #
adregan ◴[] No.44348063[source]
While I mostly try to go with the flow, I do get frustrated that there are more natural places to integrate with a issue tracking system like trailers, but they are so far off issue trackers’ happy path that it’s not worth it.

I think the problem is exacerbated by the fact that issue trackers follow fashion; and it’s more common that you are using the flavor of the week; and that flavor isn’t close to feature complete; and new features get added at a glacial pace.

I suppose this is a long winded way of stating how annoyed I am with branch names derived from linear ticket’s titles for tracking purposes, and I wish I could use some other form of metadata to associate commits with an issue, so that I could have more meaningful PR titles (enforced that I must use the linear branch name as the title).

Though I’ll admit that it’s an issue of a size that’s more appropriate to gripe about on the internet than try to change.

replies(1): >>44348704 #
1. dotancohen ◴[] No.44348704[source]
Everything you are arguing against is convention, not intrinsic. If you have a better way of doing things, do it that way. Or convince your employer to do it that way.