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

On Tue, 25 Apr 2006, Junio C Hamano wrote:

Actually, it does help Porcelain to be able to mark unrelated
crud as 'note'. 

A "note" header that explicitly has no meaning _what-so-ever_ for git 
would be fine. Then the semantics are well-defined, and they really do 
boil down to: random strings that git will ignore, and that won't normally 
be shown by "git log".

Those are actually real semantics, the same way the current "content" is 
real semantics: we don't care about it at all, and we _guarantee_ that we 
don't care about it.

The problem with the proposed "related" thing was that it was somethign 
that git was supposed to care about, but since it had no sane semantics, 
there was no way to _make_ git care about it sanely. That was the problem.

So I'm not objecting to adding headers. I'm objecting to adding headers 
that have insane or badly defined semantics where we might be asked to do 
something for them and different versions of git migth do different 
things. 

			Linus