From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Johannes Schindelin Subject: Re: [PATCH] Silence error messages unless 'thorough_verify' is set Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 11:08:31 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: References: <7vwsydf1m8.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> <200706092028.54459.johan@herland.net> <200706092142.05446.johan@herland.net> <7vwsyc8bt3.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Cc: Johan Herland , git@vger.kernel.org To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sun Jun 10 12:11:49 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 1HxKOg-0000Uk-38 for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Sun, 10 Jun 2007 12:11:46 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753407AbXFJKLp (ORCPT ); Sun, 10 Jun 2007 06:11:45 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752904AbXFJKLp (ORCPT ); Sun, 10 Jun 2007 06:11:45 -0400 Received: from mail.gmx.net ([213.165.64.20]:44893 "HELO mail.gmx.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1752467AbXFJKLo (ORCPT ); Sun, 10 Jun 2007 06:11:44 -0400 Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 10 Jun 2007 10:11:42 -0000 Received: from rdcg01.wifihubtelecom.net (EHLO [10.140.3.169]) [213.174.113.122] by mail.gmx.net (mp001) with SMTP; 10 Jun 2007 12:11:42 +0200 X-Authenticated: #1490710 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1+w0L53VRiwYIuiNqmTg0VQxwu19+t9wkUeCh7iix DKdm+hkyNS5gM5 X-X-Sender: gene099@racer.site In-Reply-To: <7vwsyc8bt3.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Hi, On Sun, 10 Jun 2007, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Johannes Schindelin writes: > > > ... Guess how surprised > > _I_ was, when I hit the error message which made me go mad. > > To be fair, that ugly "char%d" was taken from mktag and not > Johan's invention. Yes, I should have said that. I tried to hint to this by "you could just as well clean the code up", meaning the existing code. Now, _that_ would be a patch I'd be really thankful for. As for the general direction of implementing notes as tags: If you want to make them fetchable, you have to deal with conflicts. If you want to be able to amend notes, _especially_ when they should be fetchable, you want a history on them. Which makes me think that tags are not the right object type for notes. But I guess I'll just wait if somebody actually comments on my RFC for lightweight commit annotations (that's what I put into that discussion). BTW I just realized that I marked it [PATCH], while it should have been [RFC]. Sorry. Ciao, Dscho