Re: Refactoring the tag object; Introducing soft references (softrefs); Git 'notes' (take 2)

[Johan Herland <johan@herland.net>]

On Sunday 10 June 2007, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 10, 2007 at 01:16:45AM +0200, Johan Herland wrote:
> > On Sunday 10 June 2007, Steven Grimm wrote:
> > > Being able to specify relationships between commits after the fact seems 
> > > like a very useful facility.
> > > 
> > > Does it make sense to have type information to record what the 
> > > relationship between two objects means? Without that, it seems like 
> > > it'll be hard to build much of a tool set on top of this feature, since 
> > > no two tools that made use of it could unambiguously query just their 
> > > own softrefs.
> > 
> > Actually MadCoder/Pierre had a similar idea on IRC. He wanted to separate 
> > softrefs into namespaces, so that softrefs for tags could live in a 
> > different place than softrefs associated with his "gits" bug tracker.
> > 
> > I haven't thought very much about this, but it's certainly possible to do 
> > something like this. What do the rest of y'all think?
> 
>   Well, if we're two with the same idea, it's a good one, no ? :)
> 
>   In fact, the namespace idea like I told you on IRC isn't _that_
> brilliant. But I'm sure recording a softref with:
> 
>   <from_sha> <to_sha> <token>
> 
>   token would help classify the softref. And I'm sure we'll end up with:
> 
>   <from_sha> <to_sha> <token> <flags>
> 
>   with the flags to say what behaviour (e.g.) the reachability resolver
> should have wrt that link ?

Interesting. But I'm not sure I want to give up the fixed-length softref
records as I imagine it makes the lookup and processing _much_ faster.


...Johan

-- 
Johan Herland, <johan@herland.net>
www.herland.net