You can not select more than 25 topics Topics must start with a letter or number, can include dashes ('-') and can be up to 35 characters long.

121 lines
3.4 KiB

The GIT To-Do File
==================
The latest copy of this document is found at
http://kernel.org/git/?p=git/git.git;a=blob;hb=todo;f=TODO
What to expect from now on
==========================
This is written in a form of to-do list for me, so if I say
"accept patch", it means I do not currently plan to do that
myself. People interested in seeing it materialize please take
a hint. Also whatever I marked "Perhaps" do not have to happen
if ever -- only if somebody cares enough and submits a clean
patch, perhaps ;-).
UI
--
* Make "git branch -d foo" while on foo branch suggest "maybe
you want to go back to 'master'?"
Design issues
-------------
* tree entries in index?
* "intent to add" index entries?
19 years ago
* Plug-in file-level merges. On the other hand, we may not even
need this; just tell people to run "xxdiff -U" on the working
tree files.
* Doing a merge in a separate directory?
Technical (heavier)
-------------------
* Maybe a pack optimizer.
Given a set of objects and a set of refs (probably a handful
branch heads and point release tags), find a set of packs to
allow reasonably minimum download for all of these classes of
people: (1) somebody cloning the repository from scratch, (2)
somebody who tends to follow the master branch head reasonably
closely, (3) somebody who tends to follow only the point
releases.
This needs a matching smart on the dumb protocol downloader.
* Libification. There are many places "run once" mentality is
ingrained in the management of basic data structures, which
need to be fixed. [Matthias Urlichs is already working on
this: <pan.2005.10.03.20.48.52.132570@smurf.noris.de>]
Technical (milder)
------------------
* Shallow clones.
* Encourage competition between annotate vs blame. Maybe come
up with some nontrivial test cases.
19 years ago
* Subprojects. Try "gitlink".
19 years ago
* Decide what to do about rebase applied to merged head. One
extreme is to allow rebase if "rev-list ours..theirs" gives
anything. This loosens the current merge-base based approach.
The other extreme is to refuse rebase if "rev-list
theirs..ours" contains any merge commit, which was discussed
on the list.
<43CC695E.2020506@codeweavers.com>
* Decide what the right thing to do upon an empty merge commit,
when both branches happen to have obtained the same set of
changes through different history. Not recording such keeps
the history simpler, and the next merge would soon create a
19 years ago
true merge commit anyway, but this does not feel quite right.
<20060114021800.4688.qmail@web31803.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
* diff stopping at the first output; qgit wants to know if this
tree has any A or D from the other tree and nothing else.
Would help internal tree-diff in rev-list as well.
* daemon --strict-symlink.
* daemon --base-path does not apply automatically to whitelist
somehow feels wrong. If somebody cares enough, accept
patches.
* Perhaps detect cloning request in upload-pack and cache the
result for next cloning request until any of our refs change.
* Maybe grok PGP signed text/plain in applymbox as well.
Technical (trivial)
-------------------
* git-proxy should be spawned with sh -c 'command' $1 $2.
* test scripts for the relative directory path stuff.
* In a freshly created empty repository, `git fetch foo:bar`
works OK, but `git checkout bar` afterwards does not (missing
`.git/HEAD`).
Local Variables:
mode: text
End: