Re: [PATCH 00/15] git-note: A mechanisim for providing free-form after-the-fact annotations on commits

[Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de>]

Hi,

On Tue, 29 May 2007, Andy Parkins wrote:

> On Tuesday 2007 May 29, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> 
> > So you'd have to have a separate database. You could do it with a 
> > separate index file (or mixing it up with the "index v4" and doing it 
> > with a single index file that also contains normal objects), but the 
> > point is, it's going to be a real separate database.
> 
> This is an off-the-wall suggestion; but why not use the object database 
> a bit more strongly than just for storing the notes?

I alluded to the same yesterday.

However, just before waking up, I had the same idea as you, using a 
branch.

> So where a normal tree has
> 
> 100644 blob 156e952df8603c72532bcda95ddcd3bcb16ec5fd somefile
> 
> A "notes" tree would have
> 
> 100644 blob 156e952df8603c72532bcda95ddcd3bcb16ec5fd $SHA1_OF_TARGET_COMMIT1
> 100644 blob 97e08b0ab483146cb8fff31138eaa828c24ac84f $SHA1_OF_TARGET_COMMIT2

Actually, just throw in one fan-out stage, and you should be fine, 
performance-wise.

And what is best: you could merge notes from somebody else easily, 
_exactly_ because it is a proper branch now.

Ciao,
Dscho