Re: git notes: notes

[Joey Hess <joey@kitenet.net>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1037 bytes --]

Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Let me ask a stupid question.  Did the output change before and after the
> notes code even when your history does not have notes?

No. 

> >> > Might be worth documenting in release notes, maybe too late now though.
> 
> This depends on the answer to the above question.  If the answers is "No",
> then I don't see the need to say much more than "New 'git notes' feature
> allows comments applied to existing commits after the fact to be shown by
> log and friends".  If it is "Yes", we should fix the code not to change
> the output.
> 
> In any case, "log" is still a Porcelain, so it is understandable that by
> triggering a new feature you would get output from the new feature.  It is
> called progress ;-)

Do you think it makes sense for even git log --format=format:%s to be
porcelain and potentially change when new features are used? Seems to
me that parts of git log walk the line between porcelain and plumbing.
So it's not clear which parts are safe to use.

-- 
see shy jo

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 828 bytes --]