From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Johannes Schindelin Subject: Re: [PATCH] Reuse previous annotation when overwriting a tag Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2007 13:22:44 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: References: <1194082273-19486-1-git-send-email-mh@glandium.org> <20071103122707.GA7227@glandium.org> <20071103131030.GA18670@glandium.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Junio C Hamano To: Mike Hommey X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sat Nov 03 14:23:57 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 1IoIyi-0003qH-1i for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Sat, 03 Nov 2007 14:23:56 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753872AbXKCNXm (ORCPT ); Sat, 3 Nov 2007 09:23:42 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753805AbXKCNXl (ORCPT ); Sat, 3 Nov 2007 09:23:41 -0400 Received: from mail.gmx.net ([213.165.64.20]:54051 "HELO mail.gmx.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1753792AbXKCNXl (ORCPT ); Sat, 3 Nov 2007 09:23:41 -0400 Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 03 Nov 2007 13:23:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (EHLO openvpn-client) [138.251.11.103] by mail.gmx.net (mp016) with SMTP; 03 Nov 2007 14:23:38 +0100 X-Authenticated: #1490710 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX19P+qRZge1PakrsvhwyW8R7Vd3m5N/Y+CJqNPLCJc wLp7gBIjm2WyXE X-X-Sender: gene099@racer.site In-Reply-To: <20071103131030.GA18670@glandium.org> X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Hi, On Sat, 3 Nov 2007, Mike Hommey wrote: > On Sat, Nov 03, 2007 at 12:36:36PM +0000, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > > > On Sat, 3 Nov 2007, Mike Hommey wrote: > > > > > 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 ? > > > > editor.c, I'd say. > > On which topic is this ? On none so far. But the plan was to move some functions used by both builtin-tag and builtin-commit (such as launch_editor()) into the files editor.[ch]. Unfortunately, that plan has not been executed by anybody. Yet. Ciao, Dscho