[no_wizard]

Oh here’s an interesting idea.

What if these bug reporting platforms could create a branch and tag it for each issue.

This would be particularly useful for point and time things where you have an immutable deployment branch. So it could create a branch off that immutable deployment branch and tag it, so you always have a point in time code reference for bugs.

Would that be useful? I feel like what you’re doing here isn’t that different if I get what’s going on (basically creating one repository per bug?)

[justincormack]

Github werent terribly happy with the number of branches we created for this type of use case at one point.

[0zymandiass]

A branch doesn't use any more space than a commit... I'm curious what their complaint was with a large number of branches?

There are various repositories with 500k+ commits

[JasonSage]

I’m assuming GitHub has a fair amount of database/cache overhead for most things, especially branches. I think that most things the web client sees are all database content and that there’s no usage of git/filesystem in any hot paths for web views.

So I can easily see why having many branches is more storage than the same number of commits.

[dizhn]

It might be something silly like the number of items in the Branches dropbox menu.

[justincormack]

That actually worked really well, and provides great branch search features when you have lots.

[justincormack]

We appeared on a list of the top 10 most egregious users of github so I assume they had database entries for these…

[aphantastic]

Why not just keep the sha of the release in the big report?