From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Johannes Schindelin Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/15] git-note: A mechanisim for providing free-form after-the-fact annotations on commits Date: Tue, 29 May 2007 12:12:03 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: References: <20070528213511.GB7044@spearce.org> <200705291204.10606.andyparkins@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Linus Torvalds , "Shawn O. Pearce" , Junio C Hamano , Johan Herland To: Andy Parkins X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue May 29 13:13:15 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1HszdX-00087o-26 for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Tue, 29 May 2007 13:13:11 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753887AbXE2LMT (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 May 2007 07:12:19 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1756172AbXE2LMT (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 May 2007 07:12:19 -0400 Received: from mail.gmx.net ([213.165.64.20]:49753 "HELO mail.gmx.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1753887AbXE2LMS (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 May 2007 07:12:18 -0400 Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 29 May 2007 11:12:16 -0000 Received: from wbgn013.biozentrum.uni-wuerzburg.de (EHLO localhost) [132.187.25.13] by mail.gmx.net (mp050) with SMTP; 29 May 2007 13:12:16 +0200 X-Authenticated: #1490710 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX18pXoQ8r18pJtx1Q4J020CQpeYgcXeDZMsW+cYNiz j7xYIHE+sHZHAA X-X-Sender: gene099@racer.site In-Reply-To: <200705291204.10606.andyparkins@gmail.com> X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: 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