From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mike Hommey Subject: Re: [PATCH] Reuse previous annotation when overwriting a tag Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2007 13:27:07 +0100 Organization: glandium.org Message-ID: <20071103122707.GA7227@glandium.org> References: <1194082273-19486-1-git-send-email-mh@glandium.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Junio C Hamano To: Johannes Schindelin X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sat Nov 03 13:28:37 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1IoI7A-00083I-Pg for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Sat, 03 Nov 2007 13:28:37 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753519AbXKCM2V (ORCPT ); Sat, 3 Nov 2007 08:28:21 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753514AbXKCM2V (ORCPT ); Sat, 3 Nov 2007 08:28:21 -0400 Received: from vawad.err.no ([85.19.200.177]:49594 "EHLO vawad.err.no" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753474AbXKCM2V (ORCPT ); Sat, 3 Nov 2007 08:28:21 -0400 Received: from aputeaux-153-1-33-156.w82-124.abo.wanadoo.fr ([82.124.3.156] helo=namakemono.glandium.org) by vawad.err.no with esmtps (TLS-1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1IoI6n-0002JX-Qy; Sat, 03 Nov 2007 13:28:16 +0100 Received: from mh by namakemono.glandium.org with local (Exim 4.68) (envelope-from ) id 1IoI5j-0001uc-F4; Sat, 03 Nov 2007 13:27:07 +0100 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-GPG-Fingerprint: A479 A824 265C B2A5 FC54 8D1E DE4B DA2C 54FD 2A58 User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.16 (2007-06-11) X-Spam-Status: (score 2.0): Status=No hits=2.0 required=5.0 tests=RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL version=3.1.4 Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Sat, Nov 03, 2007 at 11:54:38AM +0000, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > Why not teach write_annotations() (or write_tag_body() like I would prefer > it to be called) to grok a null_sha1? It's not like we care for > performance here, but rather for readability and ease of use. By the way, I think it would be much better if this function was made more generic and would not write, but return an strbuf containing the object body. It could also be used by e.g. git-commit --amend. What would be the best suited place for such a function ? Mike